Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

EDINBURGH CORPORATION BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

ELDER YARD CHAPEL CHESTERFIELD BILL [Lords]

SION COLLEGE BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — S.E.A.T.O. COUNCIL MEETING, KARACHI

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent meeting at Karachi of the Council of Ministers of the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Hon. Members may already have seen from the final communiqué of the Karachi meeting the main points which were discussed and the conclusions reached. I have arranged for the full text of the communiqué to be placed in the Library.
It was generally agreed that the Council Representatives in Bangkok had done good work in the past year. Approval was given to the proposals made by the Council Representatives for the more effective conduct of their work in future. Several new and important ideas were put forward, particularly in the economic field. Some of these have been remitted to the Council Representatives for further study.
The Council also considered the report of the military advisers, and agreed that they had made progress in their planning of collective defence against aggression, as well as in developing measures for

improving the efficiency of the armed forces of the member States.
The Council's general exchange of views on matters affecting the Treaty area took place against the background of recent Soviet actions in Asia. These have undeniably been among the most significant developments affecting the Treaty area since the Council last met. I do not claim that S.E.A.T.O. in itself provides or can provide the complete answer to those moves. But it does provide a measure of protection against aggression, infiltration, and subversion. At Karachi it was very clear that Pakistan, Thailand and the Philippines attach great importance to their membership of S.E.A.T.O. and the habit of co-operation which is being developed. I was glad to be able to assure them that Her Majesty's Government will continue to give the Organisation their full support.

Mr. Brockway: First I should like to welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his return from his long journey. I should like to ask him two questions: whether, as S.E.A.T.O. was formed originally as a defence against Communist aggression, it was not a little unwise, whatever one's view of the merits of the issue, to include Kashmir on the agenda; and, second, whether, in view of the failure of S.E.A.T.O. to win the co-operation of the major Asian nations, it would not be wise now to reconsider the whole policy of which it is an expression?

Mr. Lloyd: In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, Kashmir was not put upon the agenda at the S.E.A.T.O. meeting, and I never concealed my own view that it was not appropriate to discuss the merits of the Kashmir dispute at the S.E.A.T.O. meeting. No attempt was made to discuss the merits of the dispute. All that happened was that members noted that the United Nations Resolutions remained in force and affirmed the need for an early settlement of the Kashmir question through the United Nations or by direct negotiations. I really do not see how anyone could object to that expression of opinion.
With regard to the second part, as I said in my statement, I do not suggest that S.E.A.T.O. affords a complete answer to the dangers in that area, but I still think that it has a useful part to play.

Oral Answers to Questions — VIETNAM (GENEVA AGREEMENTS)

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to ensure joint elections in North and South Vietnam in accordance with the decision of the Geneva Conference of July, 1954.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government have been in touch with the other members of the Geneva Conference about the implementation of this and other provisions of the Geneva Agreements in Vietnam. I hope this may be among the subjects to be discussed during the visit to be paid to this country next month by members of the Soviet Government.

Mr. Brockway: In view of the fact that the success of the Geneva Conference was one of those cases where all of us could congratulate the Prime Minister, may I ask whether it is not very desirable that the decisions reached at that Conference should be carried out; and, if it is not possible to call the whole Commission together, would not it be possible at least to call the chairmen together to find some solution of this problem?

Mr. Lloyd: I am glad to be able to find myself in agreement with the supplementary question the hon. Member has put, which is not always so; but I quite agree that it is of importance that the provisions of these agreements should be carried through, and it is on this question of the meeting of the co-chairmen that I am now in touch with the Government of the Soviet Union.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARAB-ISRAELI DISPUTE

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will offer the support of Her Majesty's Government to the official proposal of President Eisenhower that the United Nations take early action on the Israeli-Arab dispute.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: President Eisenhower has not yet, so far as I am aware, made an official proposal of the nature indicated. Her Majesty's Government are, however, considering what further action

might be taken through the United Nations in order to secure a relaxation of tension in Palestine and to help preserve the peace there.

Mr. Henderson: When the Foreign Secretary says that Her Majesty's Government are considering taking action, may we take it that, in view of the present situation on the borders of Israel and Egypt, they regard this matter as urgent—which is the word used by President Eisenhower? Are we to understand that the action which they contemplate taking will be under Article 39, and will be taken to the Security Council?

Mr. Lloyd: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the urgency of the problem, and also that it is necessary for the United Nations to play a greater part. Further than that I would prefer not to go at the moment.

Mr. Robens: What are the considerations which have prevented the Government from taking the matter to the United Nations long before this?

Mr. Lloyd: I think it is our desire to ensure that there should be the greatest possible agreement about this matter, and that we should carry with us other members of the United Nations.

Mr. Robens: Do I understand, then, that before the matter is taken by Her Majesty's Government to the United Nations they must know beforehand, by negotiations, what the results will be?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that that is frequently a very useful thing to do.

Mr. Langford-Holt: As this matter is now also being discussed by the other signatories to the Tripartite Agreement, can my right hon. and learned Friend say when these consultations are expected to be concluded?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that the Question deals with that point.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, following his recent conversations in the Middle East, he will make a further statement on the Government's proposal for the establishment of adequate United Nations contingents on the Israeli-Arab borders.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As a result of my recent discussions I have reached the conclusion that it would not be practicable to establish United Nations contingents on the Arab-Israel borders. I believe it would be valuable, however, to increase the strength of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation. I am pursuing the matter with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Mr. Henderson: Does the Foreign Secretary's reply mean that he no longer considers it advisable that United Nations representatives, or whatever we may call them, should be anything more than investigators after an act of aggression has taken place and should not be employed in order to deter aggression?

Mr. Lloyd: That does not follow. I have never advocated the establishment of national contingents. I certainly have in mind an increase in the number of people employed by the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organisation, and I would like a considerable broadening both in their functions and facilities.

Mr. Robens: Why did the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary indicate in the recent debate that they had thought about an international police force, or international security force, along the borders two years ago, and that the Foreign Secretary himself had raised it with the Secretary-General of the United Nations? How does it come about that he now says that he has never believed in it?

Mr. Lloyd: I have never sought to give any inference that I supported national contingents. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am talking of national contingents. What I have always believed in, and this is what I raised two years ago, is an increase in the number operating under the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organisation, including a broadening of their functions.

Mr. Beswick: When the Foreign Secretary now says that such an agreement is not practicable, does he mean that from the technical point of view his original proposal would not be practicable, or does he mean that, after discussions with a limited number of nations, he found that they did not agree and he has decided that the proposals would not be

practicable? Would it not be better for the United Nations to take the decision in a matter of this kind?

Mr. Lloyd: There is some misunderstanding. I do not remember ever having suggested national contingents.

Mr. Beswick: I am accepting the Foreign Secretary's definition of an international force, but I am asking why he now says that it is not practicable?

Mr. Lloyd: First of all, it is necessary to get the agreement of all parties. That is a difficulty that I have found.

Mr. Henderson: Let us get this point clear. I was not, in framing my Question, acting on the basis of suggesting national contingents. My Question plainly suggests United Nations contingents. I do not know why the Foreign Secretary has introduced this qualification. May I ask him, therefore, whether he is in favour of United Nations contingents, not on a national basis but having authority to prevent aggression rather than to investigate aggression after it has taken place?

Mr. Lloyd: I am not certain exactly what the word "contingent" is meant to mean. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, if the suggestion is to form a disciplined body of men capable of fighting, I would think that is not a practicable proposition. If, on the other hand, the idea is that there should be additional United Nations personnel operating in the existing organisation under General Burns, that is a different proposition and is the one which I personally have always favoured.

Mr. Henderson: Not to investigate aggression afterwards but to operate before aggression?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes. I said I was in favour not only of the facilities but also of the functions being broadened.

Mr. Dugdale: Would not the Foreign Secretary agree that, whatever the need in the past for observers, it is infinitely strengthened now by the fact that so many British officers have left the Arab Legion? Would he see that the number of observers on the Jordan-Israel frontier is strengthened, as an act of immediate importance?

Mr. Lloyd: I think the present situation is serious, and there is a stronger case for increasing the number of observers


or personnel—call them what you will—but there is the very important factor in this matter that the parties have to agree on this.

Oral Answers to Questions — U.N. DISARMAMENT SUB-COMMITTEE (MEETINGS)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct the representative of Her Majesty's Government on the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee to propose that its meetings be held in public.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir. The United Nations General Assembly Resolution of November, 1953, which suggested the establishment of the Sub-Committee, recommended that it should work in private. I believe on the whole that that is the better method.

Mr. Henderson: Even though it may be desirable to have the sittings in private, does not the Foreign Secretary agree that it might be most advantageous if publicity could be given to the major policy proposals which may be made by the Governments represented at the Conference?

Mr. Lloyd: That is a matter which I am considering now. There is something in what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, particularly as, however private these discussions are supposed to be, there appears to be a certain amount of public comment about them at the moment.

Mr. Beswick: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept the suggestion which he accepted in the case of the previous two series of sittings—that the verbatim reports of the Sub-Committee should be published after the series is over?

Mr. Lloyd: I, personally, think that that would be advantageous, but there are four other members of the Sub-Committee, and I do not think that I can commit them.

Mr. Royle: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider giving Members of Parliament the opportunity to attend some of the sittings?

Mr. Lloyd: That facility might be requested by members of all the other Parliaments concerned, and that would create an interesting situation—but I will consider the hon. Member's suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (BRITISH CENTRES)

Mr. Robens: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will indicate the British Centres in Germany which it is proposed shall be closed down.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: It is proposed that during the coming year the British Centre at Frankfurt should be closed down.

Mr. Robens: Is that the full list of centres which are to be closed down? Are there not some proposals to close down other centres after this year?

Mr. Lloyd: So far as I am aware, the only other proposal is in regard to economies in the running of nine other centres—not to their closing down.

Mr. Robens: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the Russian Government are now looking for sites to open centres for themselves, and that upon the vacation of British Centres it is possible that at least one of them will be opened as a Russian centre?

Mr. Lloyd: I shall be obliged if the right hon. Gentleman will give me particulars of that case.

Oral Answers to Questions — TURKEY (FOREIGN SECRETARY'S VISIT)

Mr. Philips Price: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he took during his recent visit to Ankara to discuss the possibilities of Turkey becoming associated with the Tripartite Declaration; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: My discussions with the Turkish Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary during my recent visit to Ankara covered a wide range, but they were confidential. I regret that I have nothing to add to the communiqué issued after the talks in Ankara.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ (BAGDAD PACT)

Mr. Philips Price: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he took during his recent visit to Iraq to discuss methods of strengthening the Bagdad Pact, both militarily and economically; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I had valuable talks in Bagdad with His Majesty King Feisal, with the Prime Minister and with other Members of the Iraqi Government on a number of matters. I also attended an informal meeting of the Bagdad Pact Council. These discussions were largely concerned with measures for making the Pact a success. Like my meetings with leaders in Iran and Turkey, they revealed a robust support of the Pact. I should prefer not to say more at present since the April meetings of the Bagdad Pact Council and Economic Committee will provide more suitable opportunities for discussing detailed proposals on methods of strengthening both the military and the economic sides of the Pact.

Mr. Price: With the object of strengthening Iraq and making her a strong member of the Bagdad Pact Council, will the Foreign Secretary bear in mind the great importance of assisting her particularly in such matters as technical education, in which she is backward?

Mr. Lloyd: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we can play a very useful part in the development of the economic side of the Bagdad Pact, by means of the technical assistance to which he refers.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: Does not the Foreign Secretary's visit to the Middle East indicate that the Bagdad Pact is just as much a failure from the diplomatic point of view as is S.E.A.T.O. in South-East Asia?

Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman had been with me to Karachi and then to Bagdad, Teheran and Ankara, he would have formed a totally different impression.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSIAN GULF (OIL INTERESTS)

Dr. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in view of the damaging effects of the apparent rivalry between British and United States

oil interests in the Persian Gulf, he will hold discussions with the United States Government with a view to co-operating to protect our common interests in that area.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I do not believe that any special discussions on this topic are necessary. It is not the fact that rivalry between British and United States oil interests is damaging our common interests in the Persian Gulf. The participation of American oil companies in the concessions in the Persian Gulf States is about the same as that of British companies. Our interests in this respect therefore do not conflict.

Dr. Bennett: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell me to what extent ambitions about oil have played a part in the precipitation of the Buraimi dispute?

Mr. Lloyd: Oil has not been found in these areas, nor do I anticipate that it will be found.

Mr. Robens: Is the Foreign Secretary seriously telling this House that oil rivalries in the Middle East have nothing to do with the problems with which we are now faced there? If he says that, it is obvious that he knows little about the case.

Mr. Lloyd: I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that his view that oil rivalry at the present time is affecting the situation in the Middle East shows that he is completely uninformed about the facts.

Mr. Robens: May I ask the Foreign Secretary whether or not he discussed this matter with President Eisenhower when he went to the United States with the Prime Minister to discuss other matters?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that the view which I have expressed is shared by the United States Administration.

Mr. Robens: Does that mean that President Eisenhower agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that oil interests were not causing difficulties in the Middle East?

Mr. Lloyd: The discussions between President Eisenhower and the Prime Minister were confidential, and it would not be right for me to go beyond the terms of the communiqué, but I repeat that my view—which I think is shared by the United States Administration—is that


rivalry between oil interests is not at present an important factor in the Middle East.

Mr. Dugdale: Was not it at least unfortunate that moneys obtained in royalties from the oil companies in Arabia were used to foment recent disturbances in Jordan against the Bagdad Pact, in which the Foreign Secretary is such a firm believer?

Mr. Lloyd: The revenues which the Government of Saudi Arabia received are their own property after they have been received, although I certainly resent the use which is being made of them.

Mr. Brooman-White: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, as there is no proposal that oil from Arabia should be confiscated, it has to be paid for, and it is extremely difficult, after it has been paid for, to supervise the use of the money by the Saudi Arabian Government?

Mr. Lloyd: indicated assent.

Mr. Crossman: Does not the Foreign Secretary agree that we made the most earnest representations to the American President and the Secretary of State about the use of those moneys for the Saudi Arabian cause, and we got no reply because the American oil interests would not let President Eisenhower give any reply?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that that is correct. Hon. Members opposite are always talking about the freedom and independence of the States concerned. When this money has been received for the oil it is the business of the Government concerned how it is used, and the suggestion that oil interests can affect the use to which the money is put is a complete misconception.

Oral Answers to Questions — BAHREIN (GOVERNMENT)

Mr. Philips Price: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what advice he has tendered to the Sheikh of Bahrein through the British Resident there about associating the people of the sheikdom more actively with the government of the territory.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government are not responsible for the

internal affairs of Bahrein. But, in view of our close association and friendship with the Ruler, we are naturally concerned that Bahrein should remain, as it has been in the past, a stable and well-ordered State under the present Ruling House. Not only the Political Resident, but I myself have discussed with the Ruler future developments in Bahrein. I am glad to say that a number of steps have already been taken towards the modernisation of the machinery of government, and no doubt others will follow when the Ruler judges that the time is right. We are always ready to give him our advice and help in this matter, but the responsibility must remain his.

Mr. Price: In view of the vital oil interests which this country has in Bahrein, will the Foreign Secretary bear in mind how important it is that there should be continued political development there, peace and security?

Mr. Lloyd: I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: Is it not the case that since the Foreign Secretary's conversations in Bahrein there is a prospect of political development there?

Mr. Lloyd: It is true that certain developments have been initiated and are now taking place.

Mr. H. Hynd: Is it not a fact that Bahrein is the only sheikhdom in the Persian Gulf where there is anything like democracy? It is the only one where there is an electoral roll and where there are elections for an education committee, which is at any rate a beginning of a democracy.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Besides education, there is also a committee for health.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARAB LEGION (BRITISH OFFICERS)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the present position of British officers in the Arab Legion.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The Jordan Government have expressed their desire to retain British officers with the Arab Legion, and discussions are at present in


progress between Her Majesty's Ambassador in Amman and the Jordan Government on how best the continued co-operation of British officers with the Legion can be maintained.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the Prime Minister emphatically informed the House on 5th March last that the officers
on the Active List of the British Army—about 15 in number—will be recalled."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1956; Vol. 549, c. 1720.]
Has there been some dithering or grovelling by Her Majesty's Government since then, as the result of which the withdrawal of these officers is even more difficult than Her Majesty's Government imagined?

Mr. Lloyd: I think the desire on both sides of this House would be to preserve Anglo-Jordan friendship and the connection of British officers with the Arab Legion. At the moment these negotiations are going on, and I do not think I can usefully say any more.

Mr. Younger: Whilst I agree with the desirability of preserving good relations, may I ask whether the Foreign Secretary is aware that there is a certain anxiety lest we should find ourselves having to pay out a very large sum in respect of the Arab Legion but getting nothing in return, which seems to be the view of what the situation should be by some of Jordan's Arab neighbours?

Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of that point, but I still think it would be better to await the result of the negotiations.

Mr. Crossman: Would the Foreign Secretary not give us one assurance that if we entirely lose control of the Legion, which apparently is now assumed, we shall not continue to pay a vast subsidy for a Legion over which we have no control? Can he give us at least one assurance?

Mr. Lloyd: That is getting a little bit away from the Question on the Paper. If the hon. Gentleman will put down that question, I will try to answer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIGH COURT RULES (INVESTMENTS)

Mr. H. Fraser: asked the Attorney-General whether, in order to safeguard the interests of minors and others, he will

take steps to alter the High Court rules so that, in future, compensation and other payments be invested in dated rather than undated Government securities, where the investment of such funds falls within the discretion of the court.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): No. The court always endeavours to select the investments which best serve the interests of the parties and, depending on the circumstances, either dated or undated securities may do so. In the selection of suitable investments, the court usually seeks the advice and agreement of the parties.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL COMMISSION ON MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE (REPORT)

Mr. Crouch: asked the Attorney-General when the Report of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce will be published.

The Solicitor-General: The Report of the Royal Commission has been received and will be presented to Parliament tomorrow. Copies will be available to Members in the Vote Office, and on sale to the public, at 2.30 p.m.

Mr. Crouch: While thanking my hon. and learned Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether five years is the usual time for a Royal Commission to consider a matter and whether that does not strengthen the argument that the Government should be very careful to see that Royal Commissions are appointed to deal only with very important matters.

The Solicitor-General: I cannot help feeling that even my hon. Friend, when he studies the bulk that this Royal Commission had to study, will think that it could hardly have done its work in less time.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

Widows

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what rate of pension will be payable under the proposed scheme to women aged over 50 years, widowed after 27th February, 1956, who have been married for more than three but less than ten years.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): Forty shillings a week, assuming the contribution conditions to be fully satisfied. This applies, in fact, to all such women widowed since 5th July, 1948.

Mr. Collins: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him whether a similar retrospective arrangement will apply to the recommendations of the National Advisory Committee when they become law?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would like notice of questions with respect to particular recommendations.

Mrs. Jeger: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the present purchasing power of the 10s. widows' pension in terms of its value when first introduced.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Five shillings and sevenpence on the basis of changes in the cost of living index and the Interim Index of Retail Prices between January, 1926, and January, 1956.

Mrs. Jeger: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that these widows are having to pay more than 5s. 7d., which is the total value of their original pension, as the National Insurance contribution to maintain their qualification for insurance? Surely that is an argument for making some change in the present regulations relating to the 10s. widows?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I follow the hon. Lady's point, but she will appreciate that the fall in the value of money is also reflected in the real value of the contributions. She cannot just subtract 5s. 3d. from 5s. 7d. and make it 4d.

Mrs. Jeger: But surely there is a contractual obligation involved here. Would the Minister not agree that these women, as a result of their husbands' contributions, were entitled to a 10s. pension? Cannot he take some steps to ensure that they do get an equivalent 10s. pension at today's value?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Lady will recall that on 27th February I went at some length into the reasons why it did not seem right to place a further burden upon the National Insurance Fund in respect of increasing these pensions. I know the hon. Lady will not think me

discourteous when I say that I cannot really mobilise all those arguments in reply to one supplementary question, at any rate within a reasonable length of time.

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the difference between the purchasing power of the widow's pension of today and that of October, 1951.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On the basis of the Interim Index of Retail Prices, the purchasing power of the National Insurance widow's pension is 9s. more than that of the rate current in October, 1951.

Retirement Pensions

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the difference between the purchasing power of the retirement pension of today and that of October, 1951.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On the basis of the Interim Index of Retail Prices, the purchasing power of the retirement pension is 4s. 3d. more than that of most retirement pensions in October, 1951, and 9s. more than that of some of them.

Mr. Hynd: The Minister keeps saying "on the basis of the Interim Index of Retail Prices." But on the actual spending power of those people concerned, does he believe that those figures still hold good?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, the Interim Index of Retail Prices is the best available instrument for measuring these changes over the years, and has been so accepted by Governments of both parties.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In view of the announcement made last week by the Minister of Labour and National Service about a new cost-of-living index, is the right hon. Gentleman considering with his right hon. Friend the recommendations made by the Phillips Committee that there should be a special index for the classes of person who are beneficiaries under his Ministry?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the publication of indices of this kind is within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service, and not mine.

Mr. Griffiths: I agree, but may I again ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will consider with his right hon. Friend whether the time is not appropriate, in view of this new proposal, to consider implementing the proposal made by the Phillips Committee which was definitely directed to those who are beneficiaries under the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the Cost of Living Advisory Committee recommended in a contrary sense against the publication of more than one monthly index, which view was accepted by the late Government. I am always in touch with my right hon. Friend. The question of the publication of indices is for him and not for me.

Disability War Pensions

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the difference between the purchasing power of the present basic 100 per cent. disability war pension and that of October, 1951.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On the basis of the Interim Index of Retail Prices, the purchasing power of the present 100 per cent. disability war pension is 13s. 11d. above that of the pension current in October, 1951.

Mr. K. Thompson: Do not all these answers of my right hon. Friend show that this Government and this party have, in fact, carried out their undertaking to give help where help is most needed?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I find it very difficult to disagree with my hon. Friend.

Earnings

Mr. Grimond: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will amend the earnings rule so as to allow pensioners to earn £104 per annum without deduction as an alternative to £2 per week.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I understand that this suggestion is, with others, under consideration by the National Insurance Advisory Committee in connection with their current review of the earnings limits. I must await their Report.

Mr. Grimond: I am grateful for that answer, but may I ask the right hon.

Gentleman to bear in mind that this is a matter of importance to some pensioners who would find it of great assistance if this reform could be introduced?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not wish to anticipate the Committee's report, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that a spreading of the period would work to the disadvantage of certain classes of these pensioners where there are fairly large intermittent earnings, and therefore this is just the sort of matter which one wants the Committee, with the evidence before it, to consider.

Mr. Chetwynd: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what progress is being made with the report and when he expects to receive it?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have nothing to add to what was said by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary during a recent debate when she indicated that we hoped for it in the late spring.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Underground Gasification

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the present state of experiments in the underground gasification of coal; and whether these experiments have yet reached the stage of pilot plant development.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Aubrey Jones): A demonstration at a site in Worcestershire, concluding the first six years of experimental work in underground gasification, was successfully completed at the end of last year. A technical report covering all the work done by my Department and the National Coal Board between 1949 and November last will be published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office within the next few days. This work has not so far included construction of pilot-scale plant, and I am now discussing the next stage of development with the National Coal Board and the Central Electricity Authority.

Mr. Albu: In view of the fact that the last reports that were published showed that these experiments were not very successful from the economic point of view, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the more recent experiments have shown that it is possible to conduct this sort of


work economically and whether he is discussing the matter with the National Coal Board on that basis?

Mr. Jones: I would have said that the recent experiments hold out the prospect of the economical exploitation of underground gasification, but full calculations must await the establishment of a pilot-scale plant.

Subsidence

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is now in a position to make a statement, in the light of the views expressed to him by a national deputation on 19th January, on the recommendations of the Turner Committee on Mining Subsidence.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: I hope to make a statement shortly after the Easter recess.

Concessionary Allowances

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what quantity of concessionary coal is allowed to clerks and shorthand typists employed by the National Coal Board.

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will give an estimate, based on Tables 41 and 47 of his Statistical Digest, of the approximate quantity and value of the free coal received by the individual coal miner per annum.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: I am informed that those in receipt of free coal or coal at concessionary prices get on average about 8 tons a year, worth about £27 at pithead prices. Responsibility for determining the categories of persons entitled to this coal rests with the National Coal Board.

Mr. Crouch: Can my right hon. Friend say how long this practice has been in existence? I accept that the men working at the face should get concessionary coal, but why should the practice be extended to other employees, placing a charge on the ordinary consumer?

Mr. Jones: I am informed by the National Coal Board that this is a longstanding practice.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that this has been a matter settled with wage rates for well over a century?

Mr. Blyton: Is the Minister aware that concessionary coal is part of the wages of

the men, and that to interfere with it would cause much trouble?

Mr. Jones: I am so aware, and I hope my answer indicated that I do not consider that this is a matter requiring Ministerial interference.

Distribution Costs (Committee of Inquiry)

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will amend the terms of reference of the Committee of Inquiry into the Costs of Coal Distribution, so as to give the Committee power to investigate and make recommendations about the present methods of coal distribution.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: No, Sir. The terms of reference are already wide, and I have no doubt that the Committee will consider methods of distribution in so far as these are relevant to an investigation of costs.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the, Minister aware that the terms of reference as drawn so far are concerned with costings and prices? How can he say that that includes methods? Will he write a letter to the Committee telling it that it can review methods of distribution if it wishes to do so?

Mr. Jones: I should not have acquired the Committee which I have acquired if the terms had been narrow. The terms are deliberately drawn wide, and it would be inimical to that width and generality if I were to specify certain subjects, as the hon. Member suggests.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER INDUSTRIES (CAPITAL INVESTMENT)

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will make a detailed statement on what part of the investment programmes of the coal, gas, and electricity industries are to be reduced, following the recent capital cuts.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: The proposed fixed investment programmes of these industries before the recent revisions and the programmes subsequently approved are as follows:

Coal: Proposed for the calendar year 1956: £112 million. Approved: £107 million. The reduction will affect ancil


lary operations at collieries, but not coal production.

Gas: Proposed for the financial year 1956–57: £56 million. Approved: £52 million. The gas boards are still looking at their plans in the light of this reduction, but I think it likely that the reduction will bear primarily on distribution.

Electricity: Proposed for the financial year 1956–57: £204 million. Approved £195 million. Since the proposed programme already represented a curtailment in distribution, this reduction will fall in the main on generation.

Mr. Callaghan: As far as the electricity industry is concerned, is it not rather foolish to cut at the base of our industrial economy? How can we double our standard of life in 25 years if generation is to be cut at this stage?

Mr. Jones: Reductions in investment are always regrettable. On the other hand, one of the alleged advantages of nationalisation is that the nationalised industries are subject to direct control by the Government. Hon. Members ought not, therefore, to complain if the control is exercised on occasion.

Mr. Nabarro: Does my right hon. Friend observe the fact that the reduction in the electricity industry's investment programme amounts to 4½ per cent. only? Has he also observed from his study of the Herbert Committee's Report that very large economies are available in the electricity industry without prejudicing in any way generation of essential electrical current or the distribution of it? Can we have some real economy in these fringe activities?

Mr. Jones: Economy is always desirable. When certain reductions are made they must of necessity be balanced.

Mr. Callaghan: Reverting to the question of the control of nationalised industries, is not the whole point that the control ought to be exercised wisely? The question I put to the Minister is, how can we expect an expansion of our industrial base if he cuts away at the generation of electricity in two or three years' time?

Mr. Jones: I have acknowledged the regrettable nature of all reductions in investment. On the other hand, we have an overloaded economy and certain

reductions had to be made. The nationalised industries were clearly amenable to direct control by the Government. Other industries are amenable to such reductions as can be effected through prices and rates of interest.

Mr. Callaghan: How is the Minister ensuring that the nationalised industries are not bearing an unfair share of this cut in capital investment, in view of their importance to the development of our economy?

Mr. Jones: I have already said that it is an aim of mine to ensure that the reductions are balanced.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Surplus Stocks Sale, Melton Mowbray

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Supply the expense entailed in holding the recent public auction sale of Government surplus goods at Melton Mowbray; the quantity of paint sold; how much it realised; and how this compares with the purchase price.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Reginald Maudling): The expenses of the two-day sale were £1,900. One hundred and fifty-eight thousand five hundred and thirty-four gallons of liquid paint and 10½ tons of dry paint were sold for £26,302, which is about a quarter of the estimated purchase price.

Mr. Dodds: In view of the ridiculously low prices which are realised at such sales, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that many other Government Departments have been ordering similar paint over the last twelve months? Is he not aware, in this matter of paint, that the paint manufacturers stated that there was no need to have ordered such huge quantities because they hold big stocks and can execute orders at very short notice? Why has this big loss occurred?

Mr. Maudling: My responsibility in this matter is to dispose of surplus stocks on the best possible terms, and if the hon. Member can suggest any way of getting a better price than at a public auction, I shall be very glad to consider it.

Mr. P. Wells: Is the Minister satisfied that this was a genuine sale and not rigged by a gang of dealers who discourage, by bribes and threats, genuine bids, and afterwards proceed to "knock," where they share out the swag?

Mr. Maudling: My officials keep very careful watch to make sure that auctions are conducted on the proper lines and are not rigged. My Parliamentary Secretary has visited both recent auctions.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman get ready for the next auction sale, because the War Office has taken into stock another 1,100,000 gallons of paint since the beginning of 1955?

Mr. Maudling: Any questions about the acquisition of paint by the War Office should be put to the Secretary of State for War.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Orange Juice (Sale)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what quantity of orange juice has been disposed of by his Department because of deterioration since 1st January, 1954; to whom it was sold; how much it realised, and how this compares with the cost price; and what was the condition of the orange juice when sold by his Department.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. D. Heathcoat Amory): About 520,000 gallons were sold because the juice contained preservative making it unsuitable for distribution under the Welfare Scheme. The price realised was £41,000. Payment to the suppliers amounted to £740,000. The condition of the juice varied considerably and the sales were made without warranty. It is not the practice of my Department to disclose the names of buyers.

Mr. Dodds: If this juice was not suitable for human consumption, why did the Minister sell it, as was done in the case of the condensed milk? Would it surprise him to know that plans are now well advanced for the sale of nine million bottles of orange squash to the general public? Why does not the Ministry of

Food protect the public when this stuff, which is not fit for human consumption, is being sold?

Mr. Amory: I have no reason to suppose that this juice was not fit for human consumption. It was unsuitable for welfare use. [Laughter.] That is technically sound. I have no quarrel with the hon. Member for raising this issue, because these operations have led to a deplorable result, and he is quite right to be vigilant, but I hope that he will reserve a modicum of his indignation for his right hon. colleagues, because this orange juice was bought in the days of the Labour Government.

Mr. Hastings: In what way had the orange juice deteriorated? Had it lost vitamins? If so, is not this loss equally undesirable for adults as for children?

Mr. Amory: That is not my technical advice. I think the actual loss is undesirable, whatever the cause, but my technical advice is that this orange juice was not unsuitable for human consumption in any way.

Sir R. Boothby: Is any warning given to the public when they are invited to purchase deteriorated orange juice or do they, as it were, buy it blind?

Mr. Amory: My hon. Friend can quite safely drink any of this orange juice that he wishes to drink.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Central Hospital, Hatton (Deaths)

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement concerning the death of three patients, and the outbreak of food poisoning which recently occurred at Hatton Mental Hospital.

The Minister of Health (Mr. R. H. Turton): This outbreak at the Central Hospital, Hatton, occurred on the evening of 4th March in three wards for elderly female chronic sick patients. I regret to say that three of the patients have since died. An inquest is being held on two of these deaths. The Coroner has adjourned


it until next Thursday so that he may have before him the pathologist's report.

Mr. Yates: Is the Minister aware that 34 per cent. of the female patients resident in mental hospitals in the Midlands, including Hatton, are suffering under extreme conditions of overcrowding? I appreciate that he cannot say more about Hatton now, but can he say what steps he is taking to reduce the number of people in these hospitals over the age of 65, as they are particularly vulnerable in the case of an outbreak of sickness?

Mr. Turton: I know that there is a considerable amount of overcrowding in the mental hospitals in that region, but at the Central Hospital at Hatton two new wards of 80 beds are almost completed, and that will improve the state of affairs at that hospital.

Chronic Sick, Rugby (Accommodation)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that there is need for increased accommodation for the elderly chronic sick at St. Luke's Hospital, Rugby; and what steps he is taking to remedy this state of affairs.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): The Regional Hospital Board is aware of the need and as soon as resources permit intends to take steps to meet it.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that there is much local feeling in the town about this state of affairs, despite the fine work done by the matron and the staff? Can the hon. Lady tell me how many there are on the waiting list at the moment and, more important, what is the average length of lime a patient is on the waiting list before being admitted?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The reply to the first half of the supplementary question is that there are fifteen males on the waiting list and twenty-two females, and in the whole group there is a total of 407 beds for chronic sick. The first essential, even before we provide new accommodation, is to increase the staff, which would enable us to open, in another hospital in the group, 42 beds which are now closed through lack of staff.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Television Programmes (Cooking Demonstrations)

Mr. Mawby: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that some of the cooking demonstrations on television programmes of the British Broadcasting Corporation, particulars of which have been sent to him, are in breach of his food hygiene Regulations; and what action he is taking in the matter.

Mr. Turton: I understand that the programmes were broadcast from Scotland which is outside my jurisdiction. I am, however, assured that all parts of the body that came into contact with the food were washed before the demonstration, but unfortunately it was not found possible to televise this process.

Mr. Mawby: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he does not agree that, as the B.B.C. has such an influential effect upon the people of this country, it would be as well if, wherever possible, it could set a good example rather than a bad one?

Mr. Turton: I entirely agree. I should like to reiterate that it is most important that food should be touched by hand as little as possible in cooking. Where it is necessary to touch it, it is hoped that the hands and, as in this case, the elbows also, will be clean.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

"Spit and Polish" Practices

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for War how far the letter he has sent to all Army units about "spit and polish practices which should be forbidden is of that type of Army letter which is to be regarded by units as an instruction and how far it is to be regarded as a suggestion only and therefore left to the discretion of individual commanding officers as to whether or not the reforms are introduced.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Fitzroy Maclean): The purpose of the letter was to lay down the general policy. Its detailed execution is left to commands.

Mr. Dodds: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the statement, which was welcomed in this House, was not so warmly welcomed at Catterick, where it is claimed that the recruits really like "bull"? In view of that, could the hon. Gentleman arrange for a referendum to be held among other ranks at Catterick to clear up the matter? May I also ask what steps the War Office has taken to clear this matter up and to get it into the heads of the "brass hats" that the Army of the future—the technical Army—needs intelligent orders and instructions for intelligent men?

Mr. Maclean: The policy has been quite clearly laid down and we feel that its execution can safely be entrusted to unit and formation commanders.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is it true that at the entrance to Catterick Camp a large notice board has been put up saying, "Beware of the bull"?

Mr. Maclean: I understand that one newspaper has offered a prize of half a guinea for the best "bull" stories.

Mr. D. Jones: Do I understand from the hon. Gentleman that if we bring to his attention cases in which the intention of the War Office is not being carried out, disciplinary action will be taken against the commanding officer concerned?

Mr. Maclean: Certainly, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Councillors (Voting Rights)

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware of the concern which has arisen as a consequence of his ruling that the members of the Dartford Rural District Council who are tenants of council houses were debarred from voting in connection with local council house rents when he gave approval to other members of the same council who are owner-occupiers to vote on the charges for emptying cesspools in which they have an interest; and if he will issue further instructions to clarify the position.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): As regards

the first case mentioned, I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) on 28th February, 1956.
In the second case mentioned, my right hon. Friend took the view that the degree of pecuniary interest involved was not enough to justify refusing the application.

Mr. Irving: Whilst thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask if he is aware that the degrees of difference in these cases are too subtle for ordinary people to determine, and that all that happens, it appears, is a capricious exercise of the discretion of the Minister, which can only cast doubt on his impartiality in this matter? Will the hon. Gentleman review the whole situation?

Mr. Powell: The decision in the latter case is covered by precedent and the situation in regard to councillors who are council tenants was dealt with fully in the reply of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Mitchison: Will the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend consider sympathetically extending a little what was said in the statement, and extending it to cases where—as here—a substantial number of councillors are involved, although they do not actually quite amount to a majority?

Private Streets Works

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government to which local authorities he has refused loan sanction for private street works in the last six months.

Mr. Powell: I am sending this information to the hon. Member in the next few days.

Mr. Swingler: Do I understand that there will be the names of fifty local authorities on this list? Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this is a most retrograde step because these works on private streets should have been done years ago, and the existence of these unmade streets causes great dangers to health and sanitation? Will the hon. Gentleman, therefore, reconsider these decisions, in particular in the case of Newcastle-under-Lyme?

Mr. Powell: If that is so, the application for loan sanction should have been made at an earlier date.

Mr. Swingler: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is his Department which has prevented local authorities from doing more than a certain amount of work each year and that therefore local authorities have not been able to get on with this work because his Department has laid down allocations?

Mr. Powell: No loan sanctions for this purpose were refused until the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 17th February.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Inshore Fishing Industry, Northern Ireland

Captain Orr: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in respect of the costing inquiry at present being carried out into the inshore fishing industry, by whom the inquiry is being carried out in Northern Ireland; and what bodies and persons are being consulted.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department (Mr. W. F. Deedes): In Northern Ireland such an inquiry would be a matter for the Ministry of Commerce. My right hon. and gallant Friend is informed that no inquiry is being carried out there.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

British Troops, Germany (Negotiations)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the negotiations with the West German Government about payment for British troops stationed in Germany.

The Minister of Defence (Sir Walter Monckton): Negotiations have begun, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

Mr. Swingler: I appreciate the Minister's position whilst negotiations are going on, but may I ask if he is aware that statements are appearing in a number of quarters—including B.B.C. news bulletins

—about the proposals in those negotiations; and that it has been stated, with the authority of the B.B.C., that the West German Government propose to make no payment for the cost of troops in Germany, but are merely prepared to buy armaments from this country? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that that position is most undesirable, that the majority of people in this country would be most strongly opposed to it, and that, therefore, it is expected that he will take a firm attitude on the subject?

Sir W. Monckton: I have heard and read certain suggestions as to what is taking place in the negotiations, but while they continue I cannot possibly make a statement as to their progress.

Mr. Gaitskell: Can we be assured that so far as the right hon. and learned Gentleman is concerned he is not accepting the reported statement of the West German Finance Minister that they will pay nothing and only give orders for armaments here?

Sir W. Monckton: We are not accepting that position. We are going ahead on the footing which I have stated to the House of Commons before.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Will the Minister bear in mind that there is much concern in the country about this matter? Can we take it that the policy of the Government is that there will not be any substantial reduction in the contribution made by the West German Government to the cost of occupation, notwithstanding the integration of West German forces in N.A.T.O.?

Sir W. Monckton: As I think I made plain on the last occasion I was asked a question on this subject, we are claiming, both under the terms of the protocol and in equity, that there should be substantial payments towards support costs.

Mr. Gaitskell: Can we take it that the American Government are also taking part in these negotiations? Would it be correct to say that their attitude is broadly the same as that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman?

Sir W. Monckton: The American Government are taking part in the negotiations together with us, and they are supporting the view we have taken, so far as I know.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION (FREIGHT CHARGES AND FARES)

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to make a statement about British Transport Commission charges.
Last year the railway strike and increased costs and wages added some £30 million to the British Transport Commission's deficit. As a result of increases in wages and costs the deficit for the current year might be as much as £55 million. This would bring the total deficit up to over £100 million.
Faced with this position, and having regard to its statutory duty to pay its way, taking one year with another, the Commission felt bound to come forward with proposals for a substantial increase in charges. These include general increases in freight rates and passenger fares and are designed to bring in a total of some £37 million in a full year.
The Government realised that the Commission, in view of its statutory obligations and financial position, was fully justified in taking this action. Moreover, the strict application of the Government's present economic policies requires that, in fixing their charges, all the nationalised industries should seek fully to reflect their costs.
At the same time, there are now signs that renewed and strenuous efforts will improve the financial outlook on the railways through more efficient working arising from better relations in the industry. The Government have been encouraged by recent statements of the British Railways Productivity Council and the British Transport Joint Consultative Council, which indicate that there is a new readiness on the part of all concerned in this great industry to work together to these ends.
In these circumstances, the Government came to the conclusion that they would be justified, in the national interest, in asking the Commission to take a course which would involve an exception to the general policy in regard to the nationalised industries' charges which I have already mentioned.
The Chairman of the Commission, after full consultation with me, has said that it is the desire of the Commission to co-operate fully in this policy. To this end the Commission has informed me that it will defer those increases in certain fares on London Transport services and British Railways for which it has made application to the Transport Tribunal under Section 23 of the Transport Act, 1953.
With regard to railway freight, dock and canal charges in respect of which the Commission has made an application to me under Section 82 of the Transport Act, 1947, I consider that it is expedient that regulations should be made to make increases in general not exceeding 5 per cent. and I am accordingly consulting the Transport Tribunal.
As regards those increases in passenger fares for which the Commission bas an existing authority from the Tribunal, the Commission will be making its own announcement. These changes will increase the Commission's revenue by some £20 million in a full year.
In view of its statutory obligations, the position must be re-assessed by the Commission in six months' time. It is on this clear understanding, that the Chairman of the Commission has agreed to the course of action proposed.
During the next six months it is hoped that this new initiative will enable the British Transport Commission to put in train measures leading to improved efficiency and to getting its operations on a more economic basis so that a more favourable view can be taken of its financial prospects over the next few years. I hope that all ranks in the industry will make full use of this opportunity.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The Minister's announcement is a very important one, from many angles. He has told us that the deficit this year is likely to be £55 million. The Commission wanted to increase freights and charges to bring in an extra £37 million, but as a result of Ministerial interference those increases are to be limited to £20 million. The first question I should like to ask is this. The right hon. Gentleman says that he does this in the hope that there will be some change in six months, but does he seriously believe that, whatever improvements can take place in that period.


there could be such a dramatic, spectacular change as to alter the whole of this position and is it not completely wishful thinking to suggest that that could happen?
The second point is this. This interference could surely be used as a precedent in regard to all the nationalised industries. The Government could say that they desired that a nationalised industry should not increase its charges. Does not that, in fact, imply that the Government are prepared to give a subsidy where necessary when they interfere in that way?

Mr. Watkinson: indicated dissent.

Mr. Strauss: Surely that must be so, and whatever the merits of the Minister's interference in this matter may be, surely he realises that this is an entirely new departure in policy with very considerable implications and, moreover, it interferes with the statutory obligations resting on a nationalised industry.

Mr. Watkinson: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a very important step, and it was not taken without careful thought. I find that I cannot agree with anything else he said—for these reasons. The first point he made was whether it is possible for any substantial contribution to be made in the next six months. I agree with him entirely that it is not possible for some vast sum of money, in terms of millions, to be saved in the next six months, but I take great account that, for the first time, I see in this nationalised industry some of the spirit that makes private enterprise profitable—a spirit that seems to show that those concerned are now willing to work together to get on with the job. Therefore, this six months' period is a period in which I trust that the Commission, working in close collaboration with the unions concerned, will come forward with the necessary proposals. For example, I should inform the House that this may well include much more drastic closure of branch lines, and many more drastic economies that will be necessary, and this is the Commission's opportunity to do it.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) said that this was some new interference. It is not an interference, but done with the willing cooperation of the British Transport Commission.
As to the question of subsidy, there is no question of subsidy in this at all, and that is why this particular operation is strictly limited to six months, at the end of which period the position must and will be re-examined.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: Is it not a fact that if it is designed to stabilise the cost of living, the more Ministerial interference we have the better?

Mr. Watkinson: The whole point—and I must put this firmly to the House—is this. Is the House really satisfied that we can go on with this sterile business of putting up charges year after year and making no effort at all to absorb some of the increased costs?

Mr. D. Jones: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that some part of this deficit arises because of previous interference by himself and his right hon. Friends. The Lord Privy Seal knows perfectly well that that is true. What firm proposals have the Government now got to overcome this £80 million deficit which will arise on the B.T.C. accounts at the end of this year?

Mr. Watkinson: From his long experience in the railway industry, the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the industry will never overcome any deficit unless it works together in a new spirit. That is what I am putting to this industry—that having given it a fair deal I now expect it to give, and believe that it will give, a fair deal to the nation in return.

Mr. Partridge: May I ask my right hon. Friend what exactly he means by a re-assessment in six months? Are we to assume that at the end of that time we shall be faced with an increase in charges?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, I quite agree—and I think that this answers the right hon. Gentleman's point about subsidy. This is a six-month period in which the Commission—and I firmly believe this—will be able, in the new spirit of the industry, to bring forward sweeping proposals to increase its efficiency. How much that will enable us to take a more favourable view of this deficit in six months' time neither I nor the Commission can say at the moment, but it would be quite wrong for me to lead the House


to believe that one can escape further increases in six months. All that is in question is, therefore, the degree, and that depends on the degree to which we are able to improve efficiency.

Mr. Grimond: Is not the Minister's answer a little disingenuous in denying that this is a subsidy, because it simply means that certain forms of transport will be sold at far less than the economic cost, with effects on other forms of transport? Could I ask the Minister to look at the financial structure not only of this but of other nationalised industries to see if it would not be easier to reduce the prior charges which they have to bear?

Mr. G. Wilson: May I ask the Minister by how much the Commission hopes to reduce the deficit in the next six months?

Mr. Watkinson: That is the point, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.] It is a very important point, and I want to be fair to the Commission. I think that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are taking a wrong view of this operation. This is a piece of willing co-operation between the Commission and myself, and we have gone into this together. Therefore, it would be quite unfair to the Commission for me to pin on it at the moment any particular sum—a target figure. All I am saying is that it will do its best, and in six months we shall be able to re-assess the position in the light of what the Commission has been able to do between now and that time.

Mr. Rankin: As railway transport in Scotland will shortly become the responsibility of the Secretary of State, and as the Minister's statement affects Scotland, might we not have expected to have had a Scottish Minister on the Front Bench today?

Mr. Watkinson: I am still responsible, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

Air Commodore Harvey: In vew of the desirability of increasing exports, will my right hon. Friend consider postponing the increased charges on freight and creating a standstill in the ever-increasing wages, and consider going very much further in this matter, at least for a limited period?

Mr. Watkinson: My hon. and gallant Friend has put a perfectly proper point, and that was taken into consideration, and was the reason why we felt it was not right to go beyond the 5 per cent.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Are not the Government being quite inconsistent in their policy? Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that under the 1953 Act the Commission was given full authority to go ahead, and to act with flexibility on a commercial basis? Is not this policy a departure from that? Therefore, is not the Minister being quite unfair to the Commission in that he is preventing it from operating commercially and at the same time giving it no assistance? Does he not realise that he will be driven to give it a subsidy if he pursues this policy? How is this consistent with the Government's policy of dropping the subsidies on bread and milk?

Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman is not quite up to date, and yet I know that he knows about this. Until the Commission gets its new freight charges scheme it has not the flexibility about which he is talking.

Mr. Nabarro: In consideration of the fact that the deficit cannot in any way be affected by anything that occurs during the next six months, will my right hon. Friend say what are the Government's proposals for dealing with this enormous figure of £100 million? Is it to be written off? Is it to be funded? Is it to be replaced by new capital? How is it to be dealt with?

Mr. Watkinson: That is a quite proper question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Then let the right hon. Gentleman answer it."] I know the answer and it is quite clear. The first thing to remember is that the annual turnover on our railways is £700 million a year. One must see this deficit against that turnover of £700 million. It will be seen, I am sure, by my hon. Friends that even a relatively small percentage increase of efficiency on a turnover of that kind would have a very large effect on both the present and the prospective deficit. I say that this is a marginal thing which the railwaymen can overcome if they will work together, as, I believe, they are going to do.

HOUSE OF LORDS DEBATES (ALLUSIONS)

Mr. Albu: Mr. Speaker, may I raise with you a point of order of which I have given you notice? Last Thursday, in a supplementary question about the Imperial Institute, I referred to a remark made by a noble Lord in another place, and you allowed me to complete my supplementary question, but when the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was replying to it, you interrupted him and said:
We should not refer to debates in another place held during the current Session."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1956; Vol. 550, c. 555.]
I put to you what I thought had always been the case, that it was all right in debate, at any rate, to refer to what was said in another place so long as one did not use the actual words used by a noble Lord in another place, unless they were the words of a Minister expressing policy. You then said:
It is not in order to refer to debates in another place."—[OFFICI AL REPORT, 15th March, 1956; Vol. 550, c. 555.]
A number of hon. Members have since suggested that that is not quite clear, especially in view of the fact that this took place at Question time and not during a debate, and I should be obliged if, for the benefit of hon. Members, you would make the position quite clear.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for raising the matter. Strictly speaking, all reference to debates in another place during the current Session, other than official, Ministerial speeches made in that place, is shown by a long list of Speaker's Rulings on page 435 of Erskine May to be out of order. Nevertheless, in debate the Chair has been allowed to use a certain discretion in permitting such reference in a paraphrased form and in proper language. That, I am sure, was what the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) had in mind when he put his question to me on the occasion referred to. At Question Time, however, which was when the incident referred to occurred, the rule is much stricter. No reference, either verbatim or paraphrased, to debates or answers in either House of Parliament is in order. The power to question Ministers is a

valuable privilege designed to secure information or action. If references were allowed to recent statements in either House, Questions would tend to become a continuation of debate and would make unfair inroads on the limited time set aside for Questions of other hon. Members.

Mr. Albu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that, at any rate in regard to debate, that statement has set the minds of a number of hon. Members at rest.

Mr. Bowles: In view of the fact, of which you are aware, Mr. Speaker, that in another place references are made to debates in this House within a short time of their occurrence, even as soon as the next day, and are not banned by this rule, I was wondering whether you would agree that it is a very bad rule and now out of date, and whether, as long as you are able to restrain hon. Members from being rude to their Lordships, that is about all that is necessary?

Mr. Speaker: I must not comment on practice in another place. Our rule is founded on a very wise principle which our predecessors found to be of value, namely, that both Houses should so conduct themselves as to act in a sort of courteous comity between them in the great duty they are jointly called upon to perform.

Mr. K. Thompson: I think we quite clearly understand your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, about references at any time to remarks made in another place, but your comment about Questions and references during Question Time to speeches and replies made in this House seems to me a limitation that has been observed in the breach very much in the past and would make Question Time extraordinarily difficult. What answer, for example, would a Minister give who wished to refer an hon. Member to a reply given him or another hon. Member in a previous answer or speech? How could an hon. Member ask a Question arising out of information given him by a Minister in an earlier answer, and genuinely seeking information?

Mr. Speaker: I know there are occasions when one has to use a certain amount of common sense in these matters, but it is the principle governing Question Time, and I hope the House will agree


with me in this, that as far as possible Question Time should be devoted to its proper purpose and not made another opportunity for debate. Debate has its own place; so have Questions. If debate were allowed to invade the time for Questions, fewer hon. Members could ask their Questions to get information orally. This is a difficulty with which I am continually faced: I am continually striving—and I hope with the co-operation of the House—to ensure that as many hon. Members as possible have their Questions answered orally.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Proceedings on the Validation of Elections (Northern Ireland) Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[9TH ALLOTTED DAY]

REPORT [15th March]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1955–56; ARMY, AIR AND NAVY ESTIMATES, 1956–57, AND NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1955–56; AND CIVIL EXCESSES, 1954–55

Resolutions reported:

Class VIII

Vote 1. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

1. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £350,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Ministry of Food, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; of County Agricultural Executive Committees; of the Agricultural Land Commission; of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; and of the White Fish Authority and the Scottish Committee thereof.

Vote 2. Agricultural and Food Grants and Subsidies

2. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for grants and subsidies to farmers and others for the encouragement of food production and the improvement of agriculture; and for certain direct subsidy payments and certain trading and other services, including payments and services in implementation of agricultural price guarantees.

Vote 3. Agricultural and Food Services

3. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £190,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for grants, grants in aid and expenses in connection with agricultural and food services; including land drainage and rehabilitation of land damaged by flood and tempest; purchase, development and management of land, including land settlement and provision of smallholdings; services in connection with livestock,


and compensation for slaughter of diseased animals; provision and operation of machinery; training and supplementary labour schemes; control of pests; education, research and advisory services; marketing; agricultural credits; certain trading services; subscriptions to international organisations; and sundry other services including certain expenses in connection with civil defence.

Class IV

Vote 6. National Gallery

4. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £30,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for the salaries and expenses of the National Gallery, including a grant in aid.

Vote 1. Pay, etc., of the Army

5. That a sum, not exceeding £100,380,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957.

Vote 2. Reserve Forces, Territorial Army, Home Guard and Cadet Forces

6. That a sum, not exceeding £16,370,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Reserve Forces (to a number not exceeding 400,000, all ranks, including a number not exceeding 385,000 other ranks), Territorial Army (to a number not exceeding 306,000, all ranks), Home Guard (to a number not exceeding 1,900, all ranks), Cadet Forces and Malta Territorial Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957.

Vote 5. Movements

7. That a sum, not exceeding £33,250,000, he granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of movements, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957.

Vote 6. Supplies, etc.

8. That a sum, not exceeding £55,030,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of supplies, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957.

Vote 8. Works, Buildings and Lands

9. That a sum, not exceeding £37,630,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings and lands, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957.

Vote 10. Non-effective Services

10. That a sum, not exceeding £21,860,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957.

Vote 11. Additional Married Quarters

11. That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957.

Vote 1. Pay, &c., of the Air Force

12. That a sum, not exceeding £100,160,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, &c., of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957.

Vote 2. Reserve and Auxiliary Services

13. That a sum, not exceeding £3,089,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the reserve and auxiliary services (to a number not exceeding 235,000, all ranks, for the Royal Air Force Reserve, and 11,000, all ranks, for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957.

Vote 7. Aircraft and Stores

14. That a sum, not exceeding £183,500,000, be granted to Her Majesty. to defray the expense of aircraft and stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957.

Vote 8. Works and Lands

15. That a sum, not exceeding £49,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works and lands, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957.

Vote 9. Miscellaneous Effective Services

16. That a sum, not exceeding £5,940,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including grants in aid to the Royal Society and a subscription to the World Meteorological Organisation, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957.

Vote 11. Additional Married Quarters

17. That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957.

Vote 1. Pay, &c., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines

18. That a sum, not exceeding £63,688,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, &c., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957.

Vote 2. Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

19. That a sum, not exceeding £13,897,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of victualling and clothing for the Navy, including the cost of victualling establishments at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957.

Vote 6. Scientific Services

20. That a sum, not exceeding £16,884,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of scientific services, including a grant in aid to the National Institute of Oceanography, and a subscription to the International Hydrographic Bureau, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957.

Vote 10. Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad

21. That a sum, not exceeding £17,950,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad, including the cost of superintendence, purchase of sites, grants and other charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957.

Navy Estimates, 1956–57

22. That a sum, not exceeding £30,569,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1957, for expenditure in respect of the Navy Services.

Civil Estimates and Estimates for Revenue Departments, Supplementary Esti mate, 1955–56

23. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £58,542,438, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for expenditure in respect of the following Supplementary Estimate.

Navy Supplementary Estimate, 1955–56

24. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Navy Services for the year.

Civil (Excesses), 1954–55

25. That a sum, not exceeding £20, be granted to Her Majesty, to make good excesses on certain grants for Civil Services for the year ended on the 31st day of March. 1955.

[For details of Resolutions, see OFFICIAL REPQRT, 15th March, 1956; cols. 671–676.]

First Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE

3.48 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Williams: rose—

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: On a point of order. There are various features of this and the succeeding Supplementary Estimates, down for discussion this day, which overlap one another. Would it be possible for these to be debated simultaneously, Mr. Speaker, or is it necessary for each to be taken separately?

Mr. Speaker: We are bound by the rules, and Supplementary Estimates have to be taken separately.

Mr. Williams: Do I understand you to say, Mr. Speaker, that it would be better to take them separately?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Williams: I can assure hon. Members that we do not mind whether they are taken separately or collectively.
This Supplementary Estimate is more or less self-explanatory, but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not object if I put one or two innocuous questions, to which, I know, he will have ready answers. Subhead A.I, details of which are given in page 107, of the Supplementary Estimate, concerns the provision for increases in remuneration, totalling £457,000.
I notice that in almost every Estimate affecting every Government Department there is, as in the nature of things there must be, an item for increases of remuneration, but I should like to ask whether or not the increases shown in this Estimate are wholly due to an increase in the cost of living. We often hear, across the Floor of the House, references to the cost of living between 1945 and 1950, but in this case these increases presumably have taken place since the present Government or their


immediate predecessors took office. What percentage of these civil servants engaged within the confines of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are covered by the item of £457,000? There is a saving of £285,000 due to reduction of staff. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell the House how many of the staff have been disposed of during the year in which this saving has been effected.
Perhaps the most important question of all is whether any important functions within the Ministry of Agriculture as distinct from the Ministry of Food have been closed down, because that could be important one way or the other. Under Subhead A.5—"Deficiency payments scheme for fatstock; sundry expenses," £48,500 are required because the substitution of grading panels by Ministry-employed graders has not taken place as quickly as was expected.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us why the Government-employed graders were employed and whether it is the general case that Government-employed graders can do this kind of work more cheaply than those outsiders who are not associated directly with the Government. Again, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us who did the grading in the absence of Government graders, and what the position is today? Has the staff been employed to determine who is entitled to deficiency payments?

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. D. Heathcoat Amory): I missed the right hon. Gentleman's last sentence. Perhaps he would be kind enough to repeat it.

Mr. Williams: I was asking whether the right hon. Gentleman would tell us what the position is today. Have the contemplated Government graders been appointed, since, according to the Estimate, if Government graders had been appointed earlier we should have saved £48,500? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would enlarge on the reason why Government graders are so much more efficient than those from outside.

Mr. Sidney Dye: I should like to pursue the question which my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) asked about the deficiency payments scheme for

fatstock. Why is it that the cost of grading has increased by £48,500 when, as far as I can recollect, the deficiency payments for this same stock has been practically nil? Farmers who have been sending their stock to market have not been receiving the deficiency payment. I know that this matter comes strictly under the next Vote, in which a big saving is shown, but why has the cost of grading fatstock been £48,500 more than was estimated when quite clearly it has not resulted in any benefit whatsoever to the farming community?
We are told that the Government are assisting agriculture. This sum, therefore, is added to the amount which goes to the assistance of farmers by way of subsidy to agriculture. Why has this been necessary as part of the marketing scheme when the deficiency payments have not been necessary? Surely there has been real extravagance on the part of the Ministry in the appointment of graders. There have been far more graders than were ever necessary. These graders have had very little to do that has been of any benefit to the producer of fatstock.
What benefit have they been to producers of fatstock, to the butchers or to the consumers of meat? The Ministry instituted this practice to assist the marketing of stock, but it has been and can be of no benefit to the industry. This fact was brought to my attention on one occasion in a very big fatstock market where, normally, five or six graders were employed. One market day happened to be the wedding day of a relative of one of the graders. Four of the graders went to the marriage ceremony and left one to do the work.
I speak with some knowledge of this matter because, as a producer of livestock, I send my cattle to the market. On one occasion I sent six, all different—small, a little bigger and one giant, but they were all graded Grade II, though they weighed 10 cwt., 11 cwt., 12 cwt. and 14 cwt. and some weights in between. I am quite convinced, therefore, from my practical experience that the employment of these graders and the use of extra money for grading are pure waste. This practice does no one any good. It does not help to build a system of marketing fat cattle which will either encourage producers to produce the type which the public want


or assist the public in getting the type of fat cattle they demand, because the prices paid at the auctions very rarely approximate to the grading of the cattle. One can see that from examination of any report of cattle markets in the country.
Prices paid for the different grades severely overlap. Sometimes very much higher prices per cwt. are paid for Grade B than for Grade A cattle. Sometimes even Grade C cattle are sold at auction at higher prices per cwt. than Grade A. Why, therefore, should we have grading? It provides no satisfaction to the producer and is in no way linked to the sale of beef on a wholesale or retail basis. No housewife can go to a butcher's shop and ask for and receive to her knowledge a piece of beef from a Grade A bullock. There is no follow-through, and a butcher can charge a higher price for the lower grade animal than for the higher grade animal.
Therefore, I submit that this grading is unsatisfactory, expensive, extravagant and not helpful to producers or likely to give any satisfaction to the consumer.

Mr. Speaker: I follow the hon. Member, but the only doubt in my mind is whether the argument on the whole scheme is really a suitable one when we are debating a Supplementary Estimate. I think that the hon. Member himself has the point in mind and I have no doubt that he will keep to the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Dye: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker.
This is a growing expenditure and my point is whether there is any value in such expenditure which next year might even be greater. I am asking the Minister to explain how this system of grading at this extra cost leads to better marketing for the benefit of the producer or consumer. Judging from my own practical experience, it appears to be of advantage to nobody.

4.0 p.m.

Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: I am sure that the House and the public, particularly the farming industry, are indebted to the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) for raising this point. It is a narrow one, and he has covered it extremely well. I should like to follow him on the subject

of the grading of pigs. The hon. Gentleman referred to cattle, but not to pigs.

Mr. Speaker: There are no pigs in this business. The subject is fatstock.

Air Commodore Harvey: The Fat-stock Marketing Corporation is concerned with the grading of pigs, Mr. Speaker. I merely want to say that a considerable sum of money must be devoted to the grading of pigs. I would ask my right hon. Friend to endeavour to widen the limits in grading for then it should be possible to use fewer men. At present, if a producer is 1 lb. overweight he is penalised, and this means that a man is wasting his time, which is reflected in this sum of money. If the limits were wider, not all this money would be required.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): On a point of order. I rather think, Mr. Speaker, that the payments cover all fatstock—cattle, sheep and pigs. I suggest that you might find that the pigs are in order as well as the cattle and the sheep.

Mr. Speaker: I beg the pardon of the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey): I did not think that pigs came into it, but apparently they do.

Sir Robert Boothby: Further to the point of order. Is there any chance of getting in a word about oats, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: No, not on this Vote.

Mr. Nabarro: I am in very great difficulty in view of the limits set by your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask about the agricultural machinery services of the counties. I see, for example—I know that we shall come to it later—that in the third Vote there is reference in the preamble to
provision and operation of machinery.
And, also:
J.3.—Goods and Services Scheme (Trading Service).
Nobody can tell what this scheme covers. It might be anything. Therefore, how can we say that it is out of order to refer to pigs in one instance, in which we are all interested, and that we cannot deal, for example, with the whole policy in relation to pigs?

Mr. T. Williams: Further to the point of order. Was it not your earlier Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that we should take these items one by one, and is it not the case that machinery is not mentioned in the first subhead?

Mr. Speaker: First, I had better reply to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro).
I would point out that we are dealing with these matters one by one. It is not possible for me now to say what will be in order on a succeeding Vote; we shall deal with it in due time. The hon. Member must keep clear in his mind the distinction between dealing with an original Estimate and a Supplementary Estimate. These wide matters of policy might be raised in a discussion on the main Vote, but we are now dealing merely with a Supplementary Vote and not the main Vote.

Mr. Nabarro: The county machinery services are operated by the county agricultural executive committees, and these executive committees are mentioned in the preamble to the first Vote. Later, there is an amount of £330,000 in respect of salaries. In those circumstances, would it be in order to presume that a part of the £330,000 is attributable to increases in salaries paid to persons employed in the county agricultural executive committees for operating machinery? Should I not, therefore, be in order in talking about machinery services?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will direct my attention more particularly to the reference which he says is made to the county agricultural executive committees.

Mr. Nabarro: In the fourth line of the preamble to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Vote, Class VIII, Vote 1, there are the words:
of County Agricultural Executive Committees.
Then there is Subhead A.1 "Salaries," the additional sum required being £330,000. Would I be in order in suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that a part of the increase in salaries might be attributable to county agricultural executive committee machinery services, and that it would, therefore, be in order to talk about those services?

Mr. Speaker: No, the hon. Member would not be in order. I should require much stronger evidence than he has produced that the county agricultural executive committee machinery services account for the Supplementary Estimate. The hon. Member should not pursue that point.

Air Commodore Harvey: I am, at least, grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your Ruling about my remarks. It seems that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has now made almost a speech on a series of points of order.
I should like to deal briefly with the question of pigs and the sum of money allocated to grading. My right hon. Friend and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary both have great experience in these matters, and they will appreciate that this side of the farming industry has suffered far too many ups and downs in recent years. The grading is far too severe. If the number of graders were reduced and the sum of money asked for were reduced, the industry would be better off. I hope that, while he is awaiting the report from the committee which is considering the marketing of pigs, my right hon. Friend will do something to help both the industry and the Ministry's funds.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: There seems to be something unsatisfactory about the grading system. I find from experience that when the price of pigs goes down, my grading goes up. I do not know why there should be any association between the two—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) managed to introduce into the discussion on this Supplementary Estimate a lot of matter which was really more applicable to the main Vote, and I think the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) is following suit. Hon. Members must remember that this is a Supplementary Estimate. All these matters might have been in order on the main Estimate, but I cannot find them in order on this Supplementary Estimate.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Might I explain, Mr. Speaker, that I was misled by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey)? I thought you


had decided that what he was saying was in order. If that is not the case, then I cannot be seen.

Mr. Speaker: Once or twice I allowed references to certain extraneous matters, but I never really thought they were in order.

Mr. Nabarro: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your Ruling on the complex question of who is getting the increased salaries under the Supplementary Estimate. There is no doubt that some permanent officials are getting increased salaries. An amount of £330,000 is shown in the Estimate. An integral part of the services operated by the Ministry is the machinery services of the county agricultural executive committees, and those services are operated by salaried officials, I suggest that it is pertinent to the Supplementary Estimate for me to ask my right hon. Friend why these officials are having an increase in salary. I suggest that they should not have an increase.

Sir R. Boothby: Why?

Mr. Nabarro: Because the services are redundant and should have been disbanded a long time ago. I want to pursue the point about the increasing salaries. I want the officials operating the machinery services to be given the sack, and I want the services handed back to private enterprise at the earliest moment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The remarks of the hon. Gentleman would apply to the whole service, and that can only be discussed on the main Vote.

Mr. Nabarro: Perhaps I might pursue the question of the Supplementary Estimate of £330,000 for salaries, Mr. Speaker. I wish to address a few detailed questions to my right hon. Friend. Who are the officials receiving these increases in salary? Are they headquarters men at the Ministry? Are they permanent officials at the Ministry? Are they temporary officials of the Ministry, and if so, of which branch? I hope that my right hon. Friend is writing down all these questions.

Mr. Amory: I have a very good memory.

Mr. Nabarro: Are they officials employed in provincial centres of the Ministry, which has, of course, a very

considerable staff? I want to know what specialist services these officials, permanent or temporary, perform to account for this very large sum of £330,000. For instance, my right hon. Friend has control of various research services within the Ministry of Agriculture, and they perform a very legitimate purpose. I suggest to him that these officials fully deserve any increase in salary that has contributed to this Supplementary Estimate, but, equally well, I want to satisfy myself before this Supplementary Estimate is passed that no part of this £330,000 can be attributed in any way to increases in salaries for officials operating the agricultural machinery service, for that is redundant.

Mr. T. Williams: May I ask you whether, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is permitted to ask about certain sections of employees directly or indirectly under the Ministry of Agriculture in this debate, I will be able to ask, later, what has happened to the employees of the National Land Commission or any other section of the agricultural service operating under the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) started fairly well in order by asking the Minister to tell him the answers to certain questions, including where this money was going, and so on; and that is all right. He is now proceeding on an assumption, for which there is no warranty until we hear the answer, that some branch of the agricultural service is in receipt of the supplementary grant voted. He cannot proceed upon that assumption; otherwise, there would be no end to debates on Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. Nabarro: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your guidance. I am on the borderline throughout, and I recognise that.
I want a specific answer from my right hon. Friend. I do not want the serried ranks of officials within his Ministry to continue to expand; and I do not want them to continue to draw increased salaries if they are in respect of services that I consider to be redundant, and those services are the kind to which I have referred. I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell the House exactly who these officials are, exactly in what


branches of this Ministry they are employed, exactly why they are getting increased salaries, and, finally and most important of all, that they are not officials employed on any form of service that could be better conducted by private enterprise.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I think I may now be in order if I deal with one of the misapprehensions that exist in the mind of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who is worried about this Supplementary Estimate of £330,000. The hon. Member was so anxious to introduce some illegitimate argument into this debate—

Major H. Legge-Bourke: On a point of order. We are not in Committee, but the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) is speaking again. Is he in order in speaking twice without the leave of the House?

Mr. Speaker: I thought the hon. and gallant Member was making an intervention, but, as he has already addressed the House on this Supplementary Estimate, he cannot speak again except by its leave.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: It is not for me to hazard what reply the Minister will give to the first query raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), but I should have thought that this is not unassociated with the policy of the Government in increasing the cost of living. It is making things more difficult for Government officials.
I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman some further questions about deficiency payments. We appreciate that this is really part of the cost of the Government muddle which followed their hasty measure of decontrol, and this is not the first time it has come before the House. We had the same position obtaining under the previous year's Estimates, and now we know about that because we have the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. We know that the right hon. Gentleman said on last year's Estimates that the fees payable were higher than estimated, due to the marketings of cattle being greater than expected, and to grading panels not being replaced by Ministry staff as quickly as anticipated.
I want to have a look at these two excuses which were given last year, and to see whether they can apply in similar circumstances to the present Estimates. I want, also, to see whether we can satisfy ourselves that the critical comments made by the Comptroller and Auditor General on the previous year's Estimates still apply today. The Comptroller and Auditor General, when dealing with the previous year's Estimates, called attention to the inconsistencies and defects in the guarantee system, and the right hon. Gentleman then said that some of these had been remedied and that remedies for the rest were under consideration.
I would now invite the right hon. Gentleman to tell us, first, whether these remedies are still under consideration, or whether this administration of deficiency payments is still riddled with the muddles and inconsistencies that have riddled it since its inception. How far is this Supplementary Estimate merely a reflection of the past, which, we know, was absolutely deplorable, and will the situation be further aggravated by the steps which the right lion. Gentleman announced a short while ago?
Let us deal with the Supplementary Estimate, and see how far this failure of the Ministry to appoint these officials can be attributed to the reason given before the Comptroller and Auditor General that the marketings are greater than expected. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to tell the House that in 1955–56 marketings of fatstock have been greater than expected, and that this has caused the failure of the Government to make these appointments? If the right hon. Gentleman is to give that explanation, it will be a very difficult one to appreciate. We know that, as far as mutton and lamb are concerned, we marketed about the same amount as in the previous year.
The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) mentioned pigs, and we know that as far as pig meat is concerned, we are marketing this year 95,000 tons less than the year before.

Mr. Nabarro: Much better quality, though.

Mr. Willey: The figure for beef and veal is 72,000 tons less than the previous year, so that I should have thought that argument can no longer apply. The right


hon. Gentleman's Department said in the previous year that they were in difficulties because marketings had been heavier than they had anticipated, but this year we have a marketing of fatstock appreciably lower than that of the previous year. In the case of beef and veal, it was 72,000 tons less, and in the case of mutton and lamb, 95,000 tons less. In spite of this shortfall, this drastic reduction in productivity—it would be outside the scope of this debate to discuss the reasons for it—in spite of this relaxation of pressure, we now have the right hon. Gentleman coming before the House and saying that he is not taking the proper steps which it was incumbent upon him to take to administer the deficiency payments scheme properly.
In fact, if I may say a word in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye), we have this very anomalous position which arises on these deficiency payments. The support for fat cattle, by and large, is borne on the market realisation prices. In the case of fat cattle, this machinery is inoperative; in the case of fat sheep, we have a marginal support much less than anticipated by the right hon. Gentleman when he read his original Estimates, and practically the entire support of £50 million is going to the support of pigs, whereas—

Mr. Speaker: The sum of £50 million does not appear in this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Willey: I am much obliged, Sir. We are dealing here with the appointment of graders by the Ministry, and the point I am making is that in the case of fat cattle this machinery is not now serving an effective purpose.
We have the position today that Government policy is directed to those commodities—in this case, pigs, for which the Government are trying to provide a disincentive for production. That is an entire reversal of policy. However, I will not go further into that point on this Vote except to comment that I would like the right hon. Gentleman to explain the purpose of these provisions. It seems to us that the sole purpose now of Government price support is to mitigate the harmful effects to the farmer of Government policy.
The right hon. Gentleman does not dispute the fact that at present fat cattle are not enjoying the subsidy, that sheep are enjoying a very marginal subsidy, and that almost the entire purpose of this operation is to price support pigs, where the Government have stated deliberately that it is their intention to provide a disincentive and to discourage pig production. So that, without going further into this matter, I hope that in rendering account for this inexcusable muddle the right hon. Gentleman will also take the opportunity, if he be in order, of explaining the present purpose of the deficiency payments scheme for fatstock as administered by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Amory: I will tread as warily as I can, Mr. Speaker, but some of the questions seemed to be very much on the edge of order and I find it difficult to separate those which it would be legitimate for me to answer from those about which I shall get into trouble from you, Sir, if I answer them.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) asked some questions which I thought were relevant and right on the target of this debate. In reply to his first question, on staff. the main reason for the increase in salaries there was the general increase in salaries given on 1st July last to all staff who were receiving under £2,600 a year. There was a separate salary award to the National Agricultural Advisory Service. The amount provided here for the increase on 1st July to the general staff was, £422,000, and the amount applied to the increase for the National Agricultural Advisory Service was about £35,000.
There was also an increase under this heading due to the fact that during the past year we have had to employ more fee-paid veterinary inspectors than we expected. I rejoice at the cause, which was partly that there was considerable progress in the Attested Herds Scheme. During the past year about 1 million additional cattle have been attested as against about 650,000 for each of the last two years. That is a result in which we shall all rejoice. The other reason was the unusually extensive outbreaks of fowl pest, towards the end of the year. This made it necessary to relieve our own staff by the employment of fee-paid veterinary inspectors. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that during the


past year there has been no reduction in the services offered by my Ministry.
On 1st April, 1955, the staff of the combined Department amounted to 18,683. It was estimated then that by the end of March this year the staff of the Department would have fallen to 17,493. We now expect, however, that by the end of this month the staff will be 16,242, so the reduction has taken place rather faster than we had expected. I want to be perfectly frank and fair with the House here, so I must admit that part of this reduction is a transfer. During the past year we have transferred over 500 staff to the Potato Marketing Board, 137 to the Ministry of Health and Scotland. Although, therefore, the whole of this reduction is not altogether a true reduction there have been substantial reductions by the release of staff engaged on duties concerned with Government trading at the Ministry of Food. As that work has run down we have been able to cut down the staffs there substantially.

Mr. T. Williams: Could the right hon. Gentleman say, without much investigation, what proportion of those not transferred were reduced from the Ministry of Agriculture as such?

Mr. Amory: Not as a percentage, but the number formerly employed on Ministry of Food trading work, whose services have been dispensed with, is 334 for the year. There were 120 dispensed with through general economies in work covering the Department as a whole.
On the other hand, my animal health staff has increased during the year by 85. There were also a few seasonally employed staff. The right hon. Gentleman will realise that in no case has there been any cut made in the functions of the Department. As a result of the abolition of the individual guarantees for fatstock I anticipate that there will be a substantial saving of about 300 in the staff of the Department in the near future.

Major Legge-Bourke: The Minister said that there would be no substantial change, but surely the salaries of the 500 transferred to the Potato Marketing Board will come off the Vote of his Department and be paid for by the Board?

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I must intervene and point out that, although I have allowed some discussion on savings, these are really not part of the Estimate. They are merely put in to explain why the Estimate is at that figure. We cannot go into them too far, because we should not go too far into the causes of the savings.

Mr. Amory: I am sorry, Sir, and you will no doubt pull me up if I err again. It is difficult to make sure that one is keeping in order on Vote 1.
As regards graders, on 1st April last year, the Ministry had 96 and there were 467 panels. Now there are 223 Ministry graders and 58 panels. About 600 markets are covered by our own graders. Again, I must remind the House that the abolition of the individual guarantee will simplify greatly the work of grading. Except for bacon factories, grading from now onwards will not be required in determining eligibility for the deficiency payments scheme.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) asked why grading has cost more. It has cost more than the Estimate for the reason I have given, namely, that at the beginning of the year we expected to train more of our own graders than has been possible in the period. From the figures I have quoted, the hon. Gentleman will see that this position has now been largely rectified.
I will not comment on what the hon. Gentleman said about graders who went off either to get married or to see somebody else get married. I have taken note of it and will try to see that we recruit in future only married graders. I do not agree with his statement that the industry has had no benefit from grading. I admit that the standard of grading in the early days was patchy, but I believe that the standard has improved steadily each month.
I took note of the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) and I am satisfied that the average standard of grading is steadily improving. He will also note what I said about the effects of the abolition of the individual guarantee. The hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) told us that the lower the price, the higher his percentage of Grade A's. I will take


note of that, because the incentive he seems to require for the best results is a lower and lower price. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) raised one or two relevant points.

Mr. Nabarro: Did my right hon. Friend say relevant?

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Amory: Relevant. I am never rude to my hon. Friend.
The trading activities of county committees have been and are being steadily cut down. The criterion which we adopt is whether there are private enterprise activities which can take their place. Where that is so, we do not continue our trading activities. By and large our remaining trading activities pay for themselves. In spite of that fact, we are always watching the situation and where we are satisfied that private enterprise concerns are available, we shall not continue our own state run activities.

Mr. Nabarro: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend, first for confirming the relevancy of my observations.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): The hon. Member cannot proceed to make a second speech.

Mr. Nabarro: I was intervening to ask a question and in the preamble I was endeavouring to be courteous and to thank my right hon. Friend for the ample fashion in which he had replied to my earlier question. Is any part of the increase in salaries of £330,000 attributable to increases given to persons employed by the county executive committees in respect of machinery services?

Air Commodore Harvey: Before my right hon. Friend replies, will he bear in mind that some of us think that county agricultural committees give very good service to agriculture?

Mr. T. Williams: If the Minister is entitled to answer that question, may I ask a similar question about any or every section under the control of the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The second question was out of order, although the first one was not.

Mr. Amory: Was the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That was all right.

Mr. Nabarro: Thank you very much. Mr. Amory: The answer is, yes, it is.
I want, finally, to deal with the remarks by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). I cannot agree with the implication in what he had to say about the numbers of staff. We are here dealing with the numbers of cattle that have actually passed through auction markets and been graded for the deficiency payments, compared with the numbers which, at the beginning of the year, were estimated to be likely to go through the markets. On the whole, the numbers that have actually gone through were higher than was estimated.

Mr. Willey: The Minister knows perfectly well to what figures I was referring. I was referring to the figures of agriculture production as given by his Department. When we are dealing with deficiency payments, we have to relate the figures to throughput, as was done by his Department in the reply it gave to the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

Mr. Amory: I was trying to make the point that the basis which the hon. Member selected was not relevant for this purpose. The relevant basis for this purpose, when talking about the Supplementary Estimates, is the additional amount above what was estimated at the beginning of the year to be required. There was an increase of 131,000 in cattle, 426,000 in sheep and a decrease for pigs of 176,000. In other words, there was a net increase over what was estimated would be likely to be the output.

Mr. Willey: It is clear, therefore, from what the right hon. Gentleman is now saying that his estimate of agricultural production was much less than it has turned out to be. If that is so, why was it not revealed to the House on a much earlier occasion?

Mr. Amory: I do not think that that flows from what I have said. The estimate for agriculture production as a whole, which was made a year ago, was not at all far out. The out-turn has been


slightly better than we estimated. I remember telling the House a year ago that we expected that recovery from the previous year would be very slow indeed. It is gratifying to note that it has risen from 151 per cent. to 155 per cent. of pre-war production as quickly as it has and I hope that the end has by no means been reached.
I could not agree with the hon. Member in what he said about the way the deficiency payments scheme has worked. It has had its growing pains, but, on the whole, it has worked extremely well and there is no question but that it has gone a very long way towards ironing out fluctuations in market prices.

Question put and agreed to.

Second Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

Mr. T. Williams: I should again like to put one or two innocuous questions, almost as irrelevant as those put by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). The right hon. Gentleman is aware that after twenty or thirty years of hopeless neglect of agriculture some inducement had to be provided if agriculture was ever to be restored to its proper place. Therefore, from the outset in 1937 we have always agreed with the policy of providing a subsidy for fertilisers to help in the campaign towards efficiency. We shall offer no objection to the Supplementary Estimate of £1,450,000 for the general fertiliser subsidy.
Of course, under the Price Review of February, 1955, there was an increase in the fertiliser subsidy and, presumably, that accounts for most of the additional £1,450,000. Apart from the increase in the fertiliser subsidy which was then granted, what increase has there been in the physical distribution and use of fertiliser? I want to ask a similar question about the lime subsidy, for which the Estimate has increased by £3 million. We make no complaint about that, but we want to know to what extent the tonnage of lime has increased as well as the subsidy itself.
The accounts of fertiliser companies and lime producers show profits which are very nice indeed. What supervision is exercised by the right hon. Gentleman's

Department to see that the real value of the increased subsidies is going directly to the farmers and not to the fertiliser companies or the lime producers? All hon. Members will know that increasing yields over the past ten or fifteen years have been the result of the policy of fertiliser subsidies.
Right hon. and hon. Members will not complain about this Supplementary Estimate so long as we are assured that the full value of it is going to the farms, and that, because the Government are providing sizeable subsidies, the money is not leaking away in the form of excessive profits to those providing the fertiliser either at home or abroad. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with the substance of these questions and with their intention and purpose. I repeat that we support the policy of the fertiliser and lime subsidy, but we wish to know that the value of the money is going right on to the fields and farms of this country to increase the yield and, ultimately, the efficiency of our farms.
I am provoked to ask at least one question on the subsidy payments in respect of hill sheep and cattle. It arises because of the larger number of hill cattle than was expected. That is all to the good. I have been told by the experts that the grazing on our hills deteriorated over the decades because there were no hill cattle and that the presence of cattle on the hills was expected to bring about better grazing conditions and a higher carrying capacity for sheep. I wish to ask whether the experts have noticed any appreciable improvement in the grazing on our hilltops because of the presence of hill cattle. Here again, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we agree with the sheep and hill cattle subsidies. We feel that one of the few bright spots in agriculture is that because of the presence of hill cattle, more sheep are being produced, bred and fed, which is all to the good of the country.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can tell us whether the increase in the number of hill cattle is still going on and if a very considerable improvement in the grazing on the hilltops has been noticed. I trust that my questions are relevant and to the point.

Major Legge-Bourke: Regarding the fertiliser subsidy. I wish to point out that


in my constituency, as in other constituencies where there is fenland, concern is felt about the wastage of fertiliser which results whenever there is a bad blow on the fans. When this happens, the soil goes up into the air and is carried out to sea, so that the soil, the fertiliser and everything else is lost. Last year we had a bad blow, and I imagine that the extra cost reflected here may be partly due to that. I hope that my right hon. Friend is continuing to make inquiries and that research is being conducted to ensure that every reasonable means is taken to prevent that sort of thing happening as it can result only in waste.
When the fertiliser is put in after the land has been drilled, or even at the time of drilling, and the whole fen blows away like a desert sandstorm, obviously an enormous waste results. There are methods of preventing this happening, as will be well known by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye). It may be done by the use of clay or the judicious planting of trees, and so on. But the fact remains that not enough fen farmers are taking sufficient care to prevent soil erosion, which is one of the causes of a direct waste of money under this Vote. I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue to bear that point in mind.
The other matter to which I wish to refer relates to Subhead Q and the British Sugar Corporation Limited. Originally, the Estimate was for a nominal amount of £10 which was later increased to £1,214,803. That is shown as being due largely to a deficit £1,214,813 on the manufacture of sugar by the Corporation. A great deal of capital has been made by hon. Members opposite from the fact that the British Sugar Corporation has taken vast sums from the Exchequer. Can my right hon. Friend say whether this figure is arrived at after the Excise payments by the Corporation or before? Over the years the Corporation has made pretty substantial contributions to the national Exchequer in the form of Excise payments on its manufactured sugar. I wish to know whether this loss arises as a result of the amount of those payments or whether sugar is being manufactured at a loss, and if that has been taken into account?

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Dye: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied that the supply of fertiliser is sufficient to meet the demand. At Norwich Market on Saturday I was advised to get at once the supplies which I had already ordered because the demand was exceeding the supply from the factories. Earlier this Session I raised the question of fertiliser supplies with the right hon. Gentleman, because at this time last year supplies were insufficient to meet the needs of Norfolk farmers, and a similar position seems to be developing this year. I wish to know whether there is a definite estimate, which may be regarded as accurate, of the amount of fertilisers which may be usefully used on our farms, and whether the suppliers can meet that demand at a reasonable price.
I wish to ask whether, in view of the additional sum now being voted, there will be an increase in the production of fertilisers, and, if there is, whether the fertilisers should be produced at a lower cost per ton. Has the Minister gone into the question with the suppliers, and, if so, why is it that the profits of the fertiliser manufacturers seem to be going up in accordance with the subsidy which is to be given? May we be satisfied that the big companies—I.C.I., and others engaged in the manufacture of fertilisers—are not getting a much bigger reward as the result of the subsidy? May we be satisfied that they are as efficient as they should be?
I feel that here arises a matter which should be investigated. We are not getting sufficient supplies, although, were they available, the British farmer could make use of them to produce much better crops than hitherto. The same thing applies to the lime subsidy where there is a big payment increase amounting to £3 million in a year. I understand that that is partly met by an increase in the supply of lime, but are we certain that the quality of the lime as supplied to the farmers is as good as it ought to be?
I gather from experience that some of the suppliers do not guarantee a very high lime content in the substance which they supply to farmers. May we have an assurance that there is an adequate check on the supply of lime and that we are not spending this money unnecessarily? The weight can be made up by moisture,


earth and substances other than lime. What control is exercised by the Ministry over the suppliers of lime both with regard to its quality and its quantity?
I gather from what has been said that the next question which I wanted to ask is out of order. If I cannot ask it now, I wish to enter a protest against this saving of £14 million on livestock by which we are financing all the other deficiencies. I will not pursue the matter, but I must make that protest because of the low prices of cattle in the last month or two when the deficiency ought Ito have been paid. I enter that protest. No doubt it will be noted elsewhere.

Commander Agnew: Like other hon. Members, I am very glad to see that there has been a substantial increase of nearly £1,500,000 in the general fertiliser subsidy. As the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said, I hope that really means an increase in the quantity of fertiliser supplied to the farms. I wish to make an inquiry about what I understand is a general complaint—if it is still true—about the way in which this subsidy is administered.
I understand that until recently fertiliser sold in bags of less than 1 cwt. did not qualify for subsidy. That is a general complaint, especially among the small men who do not want to buy as much as one hundredweight at a time of this expensive but comparatively perishable commodity. Could something be done to improve the administration of the subsidy so that similar quantities when sold over the counter qualify for it?

Mr. George Jeger: I am interested to hear the approval from both sides of the House of the increased subsidy to farmers. Of course, we on this side welcome the increase, but it is surprising to hear hon. Gentlemen opposite approve of it when only a short while ago we heard them cheering for a reduction in the subsidies to consumers. That is one of the contradictions we meet in the political sphere when we discuss such matters as subsidies.
I know from the farmers in my constituency how much they make use of this provision, and they welcome the increase. I know, too, from the Committee on Agricultural Questions of the Council of Europe how much emphasis is put on

fertiliser subsidies throughout the whole of European agriculture, not merely in our own country, and how this move will be welcomed by that body. Production and productivity are directly related to the question of general fertilisers, and the increased subsidy will help in that respect.
This provision also helps to bring fertilisers to the farmers at reasonable prices, In a previous discussion, we heard, both from the back benches and from the Minister, an assertion that it should be the aim of the Government to do as much as possible to put within the scope of private enterprise whatever can be released from Government auspices. It appears that the provision of fertilisers to farmers, so necessary to keep our food production at a reasonable level, is something that cannot be left to private enterprise. This is an instance where decency in prices cannot be entrusted to private enterprise and where the Government have to step in. I am glad that Government intervention in this sphere is increasing, and I hope that it will lead to increased productivity.

Mr. Robert Crouch: I also welcome the increased expenditure on fertiliser and lime subsidies. The result will be that from the increased use of these two commodities we shall have an increased yield. Also, the increase demonstrates that farmers are realising how important it is for plants as well as livestock to be fed.
I was glad to hear the Minister state last Thursday that it is proposed to spend another £3 million next year in addition to this expenditure. Fertilisers cannot be used by themselves alone. The use of fertilisers without an adequate supply of lime in the soil would not have a very good result. At the same time, we must be cautious to see that not too much lime is used.
It is most interesting to note the improvements which can be carried out. An ordinary pasture can increase its yield of hay from 20 cwt. to 48 cwt., as a result of the application of three or four cwt. of fertiliser. It is also interesting to note the improvement in beef production which can be brought about by the proper use of fertilisers. On a good pasture, a good ley, one can get a yield of 180 lb. to 200 lb. of beef to the acre whereas the average yield is about 70 lb., and on poor pastures it is even smaller.
Generally speaking, the emphasis has been on the use of fertilisers for animal crops and horticulture, but I believe that there is greater opportunity to use fertiliser on grass land than on any other type. We could easily increase our consumption of fertilisers by 50 per cent., and even then we should have some leeway to make up. Figures produced just before the war, as a result of an inquiry into grassland, show that only 1·6 per cent. is first-class grassland, that 5·8 per cent. is second-class and that 27·4 per cent. is third-class pasture. Those figures could be improved and the whole of the second-class pasture could be brought up to the first-class standard with the use, of properly balanced fertilisers and the adoption of advice from commercial undertakings and the advisers of my right hon. Friend.
The State today spends large sums of money assisting various industries and various sections of the community. It is my honest belief that the State today makes no better investment than that of giving these subsidies, because they bring an immediate and direct return to the State.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. M. Philips Price: I very much agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch) about the importance of developing grassland cultivation. It appears to me that the emphasis of the Price Review in increasing the subsidy for fertilisers indicates the desire of the Government to encourage the cultivation of more grass with a view to saving foreign currency expended on imported feeding-stuffs.
To my mind, that is the right line, but I want to make it plain that the figures indicate that farmers are increasing their use of artificial fertilisers on the land. It is to be hoped that much of that is going on to grass, and particularly on to temporary leys. No doubt a large part of it goes to cereal crops, but if we want to help the nation's balance of payments problem we should realise that we have a wonderful cattle food in the form of grass, which we can use to save money on imported feeding stuffs. It can take the form of hay, sileage or dried grass, and sileage is relatively cheap to make.
If we are to make the best use of this grass, however, we must have a proper

system of fertilisation, and the best way to encourage it is by a subsidy of this kind. I am glad to see that the emphasis is this year's Price Review, as was the case in the previous year, is upon the encouragement of the use of fertilisers in this way. I hope that fertilisation will continue along these lines, especially in the direction of grass cultivation, so that it can help our balance of payments problem.

Mr. Nabarro: I want to say a few words about the additional sum required for the general fertiliser subsidy, namely, £1,450,000. I endorse everything that other hon. Members have said about the desirability of the use of increased tonnages of fertilisers, but I am not sure that the figure of £1,450,000 necessarily connotes the use of that increased tonnage. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell us how much of this amount is attributable to the use of an increased tonnage of fertilisers, and how much is attributable to an increase in the price of fertilisers themselves. That seems to be a very relevant point.

Mr. T. Williams: I have already made that point.

Mr. Nabarro: Yes, but the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) might permit hon. Members on this side of the House to have views as well. He is not the only spokesman.
I raise this point particularly because a good deal of discontent exists in the farming industry about the price of fertilisers. I recently attended a farmers' meeting at Worcester, where four Conservative Members of Parliament met representatives of the National Farmers' Union. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance), my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire (Mr. Ward), my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Commander Agnew) and myself were confronted with this general grumble from farmers about the price of fertilisers. That is associated directly with this Supplementary Estimate.
Farmers feel that there are relatively few firms manufacturing fertilisers, and I hope that my hon. Friend can tell us whether his Department exercises any control or surveillance over the retail prices of fertilisers, in order to ensure


that the farming community receives its supplies at the lowest possible price.
The second grumble among the farmers—and this is a widespread feeling in the farming industry—is that there is an agreement among fertiliser manufacturers to maintain prices. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give us some assurances on that matter, because very large supplies of fertilisers are being employed today. Large sums of public money are being spent upon this fertiliser subsidy, and taxpayers are entitled to ask whether the fertilisers which are being made available are being supplied at the lowest possible price, or whether there is any evidence that the market is being "rigged". I used that term in repetition of what has been said to me by countless farmers in relation to fertilisers. They are very perturbed about what they allege to be the high price of fertilisers.
If there is any case—I am being purely interrogatory; I do not want the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) to nod, thinking that I am alleging that there is a price ring in this matter, because I do not know. I am asking my hon. Friend to give us an assurance that his Department has satisfied itself, in view of the heavy cost of the fertiliser subsidy—the right hon. Member for Don Valley did not make any of these points, so it is no use his nodding—that there is no foundation in fact for the allegations made by many farmers of all types and in all parts of the country that an attempt is being made to keep up fertiliser prices by some sort of ragging, or by a ring in the fertiliser market.
If that is the case, however, I would ask my hon. Friend to deal with the matter without delay through the Monopolies Commission or, when the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill reaches the Statute Book, to make quite certain that a matter of this kind is subjected to the scrutiny and surveillance which the large sums of public money being invested in the fertiliser subsidy merit.

Mr. Joseph Slater: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) referred to the fact that there are only four firms in this country who produce fertilisers.

Mr. Nabarro: I said that there were relatively few.

Mr. Slater: One of the longest happens to be in my constituency, namely, I.C.I. In my constituency, which is the second largest, agriculturally, in the county of Durham, farmers are very interested in the way this matter is being dealt with, and they would like to know why the Minister needs to ask for this increase in subsidy.
I am also very interested in the lime subsidy. In this case we are asked to vote an extra £3 million. Will the Minister tell the House what form of control he has upon those who supply lime to our farms? Has he a proper check system, whereby the thousands of tons of lime conveyed along our highways are subjected to a proper weighing system, with inspectors on the job to see that the tonnage for which we are paying is being delivered?
Can the Minister say whether dolomite comes within the lime subsidy? If he looks into the matter he will find that thousands of tons of dolomite which has been lying dormant for years and years has been bought up by contractors at a low price, and they are now selling it at at good price. They are bound to make fortunes out of it.

Mr. Brian Harrison: I regard these Supplementary Estimates as very important. In the train coming up to town today a farmer was telling me that if we had a proper subsidy for lime and for drainage that was all that was needed for good farming. I cannot go as far as that, but I think they are both vital in agriculture. Lime is very important for building up the fertility and strength of the soil. If fertiliser is put on ground that has not been adequately limed it is largely wasted. We must get the condition of the soil right by an adequate supply of lime, when there will be an absolute minimum of waste of the chemicals that are on the subsidy.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider whether the lime content of sludge manure can be included in the amount of the lime that attracts subsidy. There are hundreds and hundreds of tons of this sludge manure in my constituency, and it is used particularly by horticulturists. If they had the assistance of the lime subsidy for the lime content of that by-product they would be substantially helped and many of the smaller


men particularly would be encouraged to use more of this very good fertiliser.
Is the Minister quite happy about there being adequate quantities of nitrogenous fertiliser available in the coming spring? In a number of areas the merchants have their order books full and cannot supply any more of it. This will become a very serious national problem if it is not possible to raise the productivity of grassland and corn crops by adequate top dressings. It is impossible in East Anglia to get nitrogenous fertiliser until some time in May or June, and even later in other areas.
Before the Minister pays any of the subsidy on lime that is spread on the land I suggest he makes it conditional that the land be examined for acidity. In some cases 10 tons of chalk per acre is the standard dressing, but that may be in excess of the requirements of the soil. I cannot believe that the supply of chalk will be unlimited, so I suggest that the subsidy should be conditional upon analysis of the soil, and that priority should then be given to the payment of subsidy for this product.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: I welcome this Vote, under which we shall pay about £4½ million to our farmers in respect of fertilisers. That is a lot of money, and is even a little more than we spend on the whole of Nigeria, which has 30 million inhabitants in colonial development and welfare, so let us get this matter into perspective. I have almost 500 farmers in my constituency, some of whom are good old-fashioned dog-and-stick farmers, and we have the finest beef cattle in the world. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby) has boasted in this Chamber about the beef from East Scotland; I claim that in Market Harborough and on the blue clay-soil lands we have the finest beef cattle.
I welcome the proposal to spend money upon additional fertiliser and lime for what is sometimes heavy and sour soil. I feel a little shamefaced on this occasion, because, for the first time in my life, as I look over to the second bench below the Gangway on the Government side of the House, I realise that I am in most unusual company, that of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro).

Despite his sighing and moaning, I find that he and I think together on this matter, and I want to back him up in his no doubt sincere plea and sincere attack—despite his sitting on those benches—on private enterprise in the lime industry.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member must not misrepresent me. I was very careful to say that I did not even make allegations in this regard, but was repeating the widespread grumbles made by the farming community. I asked my right hon. Friend to confirm those statements or otherwise.

Mr. Johnson: There is a term in the United States of America of "guilty by association." If the hon. Member is guilty by association with those farmers, then I am guilty by association with him in this Chamber this afternoon. I echo substantially, and I back up his plea to the Minister for some explanation of the tonnage involved, and how much the size of this Vote is due, not to the value of the fertiliser going to the farmers in my division or any other division, even including Kidderminster, but to the cost per ton of fertiliser. Government supporters have referred to the amount of lime and fertiliser being put upon our fields. They attacked us when we were in power because of our subsidies. A favourite term of hon. Gentlemen was to ask, "Where is your ceiling?" They never even had a basement in some instances. They asked where was our ceiling in education, housing and in other aspects of finance.
I would ask the Minister to tell us where his ceiling is in this connection. I do not mind whether he goes to double figures if we are to get more in the value and quantity of foodstuffs from our 30 million acres or so in the United Kingdom. It will be money well spent, in fact, better spent than some of the money used to subsidise the British Sugar Corporation of Messrs. Tate and Lyle, which we see on page 109 of the Estimates. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to spend £5 million, £6 million or £10 million under this Vote? I hope he will answer this question later. If, with an open mind, and, what is more important, with an open hand, he goes on with these genuine, constructive subsidies, he will have the backing of all hon. Members on this side who, like myself, have many hardworking farmers in their constituency.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I prefer to regard the so-called subsidy as a production grant because to me its importance seems to be mainly, not that it lowers the price of the end product, whether to the world price level or to what the0 consumer is prepared to pay, but that it encourages the best system of farming, namely, ley farming, for our climate and general market needs.
The figures of consumption today compared with pre-war are interesting. The firm of I.C.I. produced a study of farming, and with respect to fertilisers it points out that the consumption in 1953–54, as a percentage of 1937–38, reduced to constant prices, is no less than 289. In other words, we have used nearly three times as much fertiliser in 1954 as we did immediately before the war.
It is important when using fertiliser not to waste it in the sense that the fertiliser chosen, and on which public money is expended, must be suited first to the condition of the soil and then to the crop which it is proposed to grow. There are so many kinds of fertilisers, especially the compound ones, and money can undoubtedly be wasted by an injudicious choice. That is where the services of the National Agricultural Advisory Service and the manufacturers' own representatives can be most useful.
I regret the absence of any sum for fertiliser subsidy upon potash. The absence is serious for the horticultural industry and for those farmers who farm on the lighter, sandier soils which are often deficient in potash. I know that one of the difficulties is that we have no native supply of potash. The hoped for sources in Yorkshire were not a commercial proposition and, at the moment, our sources are limited to Europe, though there is, I understand, some prospect of a further source being developed in the area of the Dead Sea. I hope that my right hon. Friend will pursue the search for an alternative supply of potassic fertilisers so that at a later date we may be able to extend the subsidy to their use.
As to the question of price raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), if my recollection is correct, the question of the supply of chemical fertilisers has already been referred to the Monopolies Commission and, therefore, we may hope to have the truth revealed in the normal course of its

investigations. I hope, therefore, that this sum of money will continue to be increased as long as it is related to greater productivity, because I am certain that it is one of the best ways of channelling money into agriculture.

Mr. William Whitelaw: I should like to refer to one subject which I think has been touched on very little this afternoon. I have not been able to be here for the whole debate, and I apologise to any hon. Member who may have referred to it in detail and whom I did not hear. I refer to the question of hill farming. There are many hill farms in my constituency in Cumberland, and I believe that the value of the work which is done in these areas and the improvements which we have seen under both Governments since the war are truly amazing.
I refer particularly to the subsidy payments in respect of hill sheep and hill cattle. I believe that any money that has been spent in this way has been well spent in the national interest. I should like, in particular, to refer to the money spent on fertiliser and lime in the improvement of grassland in these areas. A great deal of the grass, particularly on the rather higher and wetter hills, is still very poor and much can be done through drainage and the wise application of lime and fertilisers. A good deal of money also needs to be spent on fencing, and I believe here, too, great value can be gained when the money is so spent.
There is one point which I should like to raise with the Parliamentary Secretary. I have already done so in correspondence. He has been most helpful to me, but I should like to repeat the point on this occasion. I understand that a hill farmer who receives various fertiliser and lime subsidies as well as other grants cannot in any circumstances get more than 50 per cent. of the cost of that work, even where in some cases, if he added all the grants to which he was entitled, that sum would come to more than 50 per cent. The rule says that he cannot get more even in those circumstances.
I feel that perhaps this is not entirely fair, because in the same circumstances the good-land farmer can also get 50 per cent. of the cost, and surely the man who is putting out the money—and much of it on very poor land—should be entitled


to more than the man who is working on the good land. I realise the difficulties, but I should like to put that question once more to the Parliamentary Secretary.
I conclude by saying that in these districts on our hills there is a tremendous potential still to be developed, and I believe that the money voted to these areas in the past and today has been and is being well spent in the national interest.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) mentioned the question of potash, and I think that many hon. Members feel strongly upon this matter, especially as it affects the horticultural industry. I know the arguments against that point. My hon. Friend said that a certain amount was coming from Israel. This is from the factory at Sodom on the Dead Sea. I was there in January, and the capacity of that factory has been doubled, and within the year production is likely to be quadrupled. I trust that the Minister will keep that matter very much in mind and will see whether at a future date potash could be included, especially in support of the horticultural industry which has been suffering much of late.

Mr. Willey: I am sure the House will feel that we have had a useful debate on fertilisers. I wish to put one or two questions to the right hon. Gentleman before he replies. First of all, may I say that by way of an aside the right hon. Gentleman referred in our last debate to agricultural output, and perhaps on this occasion, in an aside, he will tell us what has happened to the target of 60 per cent. increase of net output compared with pre-war which we were easily to attain by 1956. Perhaps he will tell us what has happened and what the Government's attitude is towards that target set by his predecessor.
We have been told that the supply of chemical fertilisers has been referred by the President of the Board of Trade to the Monopolies Commission. We can only hope that we shall get an early Report, because it is obviously disturbing when the President of the Board of Trade has referred the supply of chemical fertilisers to the Monopolies Commission and at the same time the House should be considering increased subsidies for the provision of those fertilisers. Because of

this special relationship between the Exchequer subvention and the attitude which the President of the Board of Trade has shown by referring the matter to the Monopolies Commission, I hope we may have as early a report as possible. Meanwhile, it is very difficult, if not improper, to go very far with this question, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will pay attention to the concern which has been expressed on both sides of the House. It will be to the benefit of all, and certainly to the benefit of the farmer and the manufacturer, if we have an early report in this case.
5.30 p.m.
There has been some discussion of the difficulty of supply of fertilisers, and I wonder whether this difficulty is affected by the Government's credit squeeze. The Government are apt to embarrass themselves on the one hand by some action they take on the other hand. I gather from the Minister that that is not the case here. If it is not the case. I will put another contradiction to him with which he will find it more difficult to deal.

Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the credit squeeze. If it were having an effect in this case there would be no demand, but in fact there is a big demand and it is very difficult to get the material.

Mr. Willey: I was dealing with the question of supply and asking whether the manufacturers are being affected by the credit squeeze, just as we know some manufacturers have been affected in other fields. I am asking simply as a point of inquiry.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: The fertilisers industry is said to be a monopoly. Surely it has never been part of the Opposition's case that monopolies have been affected by the credit squeeze. It has been said that they are the people, like I.C.I., with huge resources, who can go right ahead.

Mr. Willey: The hon. Member has not been as attentive as he usually is.

Mr. Nabarro: He has.

Mr. Willey: I was most careful not to stigmatise the manufacturers in any way. I said that in these circumstances it would be to the benefit of all concerned if we had an early report. I am


not prepared to express any opinion until we have that report, but I have asked a question. I can appreciate the desire of hon. Members opposite to reply for their Minister, because we know how stigmatised he has been by the farmers when he has spoken, but I prefer the right hon. Gentleman to reply for himself.
Another contradiction, which is much more difficult to explain, is the increased subsidy payments in respect of hill sheep and hill cattle. In criticising the withdrawal of the individual guarantee, the National Farmers' Union says that these are the very people who will be affected. If hon. Members will look at the statement issued by the National Farmers' Union, they will see that, in dealing with the withdrawal of the individual guarantees, the union said:
This will greatly increase the producer's…

Major Legge-Bourke: On a point of order. Am I not right in saying that the matter to which the hon. Member is now referring arises from the last Price Review and has nothing to do with the Supplementary Estimate?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I thought it was all right.

Mr. Willey: Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Of course, hon. Members opposite know what is in the N.F.U. statement and that is why they are trying to prevent me from quoting it.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: rose—

Mr. Willey: I will give way after I have read this quotation. In dealing with the withdrawal of the individual guarantees the National Farmers' Union said:
This will greatly increase the producer's risk of a lower than average return from a bad market and will bear particularly severely on the smaller man.…

Major Legge-Bourke: On a point of order. I must persist in this point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Many of us who have taken part in the debate would have been only too delighted to discuss the future of the industry in its various aspects. The hon. Member is now quoting from a statement by the National Farmers' Union as to the future of a

certain section of the agricultural industry. Surely that cannot possibly be connected with the Supplementary Estimates for the past year.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That would certainly be so. I thought the hon. Member was making a point on the £691,000. He must not go into the future.

Mr. Willey: I have no wish to pursue the matter further, since it has not in fact been touched on. I will make the point briefly by saying that we are concerned here with the fact that the Government are being inconsistent, for the reasons which I have already advanced.
I want to touch on a subject which has not so far been mentioned—milk. This is Vote M.4. Here we have an increase in subsidy of £7,800,000, the largest increase required under the Vote. This will mean that the total subsidy required for this year will be rather less than that last year, but it is appreciably higher than the original Estimate presented by the right hon. Gentleman. I understand that this is due to increased distributors' margins, and of course that is consequential upon last year's Price Review.
If we are considering the purpose of the subsidy to the producer we have to pay regard to its effect, and the production of milk must be related to the consumption of milk. Again I will express myself with some caution, and certainly not at length, but once again there is an inconsistency in the Government's approach, because they have recently announced steps the consequence of which will be, and is intended to be, a reduction in consumption. As The Economist said,
The possibility of some fall in milk production is not particularly disturbing to the Government.
That is a very mild expression of view. We know that the price increase which is to be imposed this year will reduce the consumption of milk.

Mr. Nabarro: Why?

Mr. Willey: Because that has been the effect of the previous price increases, as we can see.

Mr. Nabarro: I am sure the hon. Gentleman has read the leading editorial articles in the principal national newspapers—The Times, the Daily Telegraph,


the Manchester Guardian, and on Sunday the Sunday Observer. None of those newspapers took the view which the hon. Member is now expressing.

Mr. Willey: I am endeavouring to express myself on the point with brevity.

Mr. Nabarro: No doubt the hon. Gentleman read the Daily Worker.

Mr. Willey: The distributors make it quite clear that an increase in the retail price will affect the consumption of full price fresh milk, as it had done in the past. This is an inconsistency in the Government's policy. It might appear on the face of it that by the increase in subsidy the Government are supporting an increase in the production of milk, but, as I have indicated, that is not so. We are dealing with this year's Estimates, not the next year's Estimates, if I may point that out to hon. Members, but it is quite clear from the Government's present attitude that they do not now wish to increase the consumption of milk. I have referred to the question of the retail prices. Obviously production must be related to consumption.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Nabarro: Pull him up again.

Mr. Willey: I was endeavouring to make the point briefly, but I can understand the apprehension of those hon. Members who represent agricultural constituencies, because milk production is a matter of some concern to farmers. It is quite clear from the retail price policy which has now been announced that the Government intend to try further to reduce the consumption of full price fresh milk.

Mr. Amory: I very much object to that. The Government have said repeatedly that they would welcome a further increase in the consumption of liquid milk. Nothing has happened to give the hon. Member grounds for saying that we wish to see a reduction in the consumption of liquid milk.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think we should confine ourselves to what has happened and not deal with the future; then we shall get on better.

Mr. Willey: I will deal with what has happened. Under the first two years of

the Conservative Government the consumption of full price fresh milk dropped by about 3 per cent. and has since been steady. I shall not comment further on what is likely to happen this year.
Now lest us deal with the production side as it is disclosed at the moment. I am trying to see What the indications of this additional subsidy are. The right hon. Gentleman has said "some change from milk to beef so far as it is practicable" is desirable, but—

Mr. Nugent: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I can find no mention at all of the point the hon. Member has just made in the Supplementary Estimates? Is his new topic in order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member has not developed that point. I was listening to him very carefully.

Mr. Nugent: If I may amplify it, the point was the changing from milk to beef, but I can find no reference to that in the Supplementary Estimates. Is that in order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, it is not in order to develop that argument, but I thought the hon. Member was making another point.

Mr. Willey: I was certainly making another point. I was endeavouring to discover the purpose of the Government policy that lies behind this Vote. It is quite clear, as has been shown by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, that Government policy is not now to increase the production of milk. That has been made clear and is not disputed by the Government. So, once again, we find increasing difficulty in following what the purposes of the Government are in regard to agriculture. We know that one of the current difficulties is that caused by importing feedingstuffs, but this Vote is not to meet that difficulty. I will put it fairly and squarely to the right hon. Gentleman. The purpose of an increased milk subsidy is to recognise the position which is being caused by the Government. We are no longer getting the use of agriculture subsidies to increase agricultural production.

Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. Member is making very wild assertions about the consumption of milk, but I think that if he looks at the official figures he will find that the consumption has gone up, not down.

Mr. Willey: I have the figures before me. The consumption has not gone up; it has remained stable—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—after having fallen by 3 per cent. under the present Government.

Mr. Nabarro: When?

Mr. Willey: Under the first two or three years of the Conservative Government.

Mr. Nabarro: When was that?

Mr. Willey: From when the Government took over. I apologise for taking up the time of the House, but I must reply to interruptions. All I am saying is that, having got stability into milk production, the Government now are deliberately depressing it. This is the dilemma which the right hon. Gentleman faces. Just as in discussion of the previous Vote, so we have the position on this Vote, that the purpose of the Government is no longer to use the subsidy to increase production. We have here the increasing subsidy element, but it is quite clear—for the reasons I have given—that it is not the purpose of the Government to increase milk production.

Mr. Amory: I must interrupt the hon. Member. The Government are at present making a direct contribution to the expenses of the National Milk Publicity Council, which has as its main object the encouragement of the consumption of liquid milk. If we were not in favour of increasing consumption of liquid milk, why, I ask the hon. Member, do we go out of our way to contribute to the expenses of that body?

Mr. Willey: I asked the right hon. Gentleman the other day what he would do, and he said he would do nothing but leave it to the Milk Marketing Board. What I am considering is the effect of Government policy as stated by the right hon. Gentleman.
I would point out that this is becoming a matter of increasing disturbance. We are getting subsidies, as in the case of the subsidies we discussed earlier, and now in the case of milk, which are not bringing security to the producers. Because of the policy of the Government which lies behind the subsidy, there is acute disturbance in the industry. The right hon. Gentleman is using the taxpayers' subvention merely to mitigate the harm of deliberate Government policy.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: I had not intended taking part in this debate, but after the statements made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) I feel I must ask whoever is to reply to take up the question which the hon. Member asked about the individual guaranteed price. The hon. Member made a statement that the N.F.U. was complaining that this would seriously affect farmers on the hills of Wales. The hon. Member would not give way so that I could ask him to develop that point, but I will willingly give way if he wishes to develop it now. The individual guaranteed price was brought in at the time to meet those cases.

Mr. T. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Although it may seem unkind to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin), may I ask you whether the individual minimum guaranteed price is referred to in these Supplementary Estimates?

Mr. Nabarro: Further to that point of order. May I first—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Let me deal with one point of order first. We are only dealing with the additional sum required. I hope that hon. Members will try to keep to that and not to deal with the future or with policy. The policy has been agreed. Extra money is wanted and we should try to keep to that question.

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Subhead J is "Subsidy payments in respect of hill sheep and hill cattle." Surely that covers the individual guaranteed price?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The only thing which has to be explained is why this £691,000 is required. That is the only point. It is quite simple.

Mr. Baldwin: The hon. Member for Sunderland, North stated that the individual guaranteed price affected the hill farms of Wales and that the N.F.U. was making a complaint about it. Surely we on this side are entitled to make our contribution to that argument?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps I was to blame. Perhaps I should have stopped the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey).

Mr. Baldwin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Surely, it cannot be that a statement can be made from the Opposition Front Bench to which it is out of order for us to reply? I do not say that the statement was out of order, but are we not allowed to reply?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If I made a mistake in allowing the hon. Member to say something which was out of order, I apologise, but I am not going to allow another hon. Member to be out of order in replying to it.

Mr. Nugent: If I begin by replying to the questions put by the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), I shall be more likely to be in order than if I begin by replying to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey); indeed, I found great difficulty in discovering what part of his speech was in order.

Mr. Willey: That is a reflection on the Chair.

Mr. Nugent: I could make a further reflection on the hon. Member, but as we are having a friendly debate, I shall proceed.
I turn to the question put by the right hon. Member for Don Valley, and indeed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, with regard to the fertiliser subsidy. I thought we had an interesting and valuable debate on the fertiliser subsidy and on the value it is giving to our farms. It was welcome both by my right hon. Friend and myself to hear from both sides of the House general approval of these subsidies. I think everyone feels that these are subsidies which really help production at the right point and give good value to the whole community. The questions that were raised were rather with a view to seeking reassurances on certain points as to just what was happening.
The first general reply I shall make is to the anxiety which was expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), as well as by right hon. and hon. Members opposite about the competitiveness or otherwise of the fertiliser industry. The first point I must make in reply to that was made by the bon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North—when he was in order—that the fertiliser industry has already been

referred to the Monopolies Commission. In due course that Commission will undoubtedly give the House, and indeed the whole country, a full report of just what the industry's price arrangements are and how the industry is working. Although I do not want to seem in any way to be anticipating the findings of that Commission, I feel that the House would wish me to make some general reply to inquiries because, after all, we have a responsibility for these large sums of money and should be in a position to assure the House that we consider that good value is received for them, and why.
First, then, turning to the fertiliser industry—before dealing with lime—let me give a few figures which may be helpful to the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley asked me what increase in fertiliser consumption had taken place in recent years, and the figures which I think give the best indication are those based on a three-year average up to 1951–52 and working up to the estimated figure for 1954–55. I should here say that the fertiliser year is one which, if my memory serves aright, ends in the middle of the summer—for some reason that I have not been able to discover. It ends on 30th June, and the new fertiliser year begins on 1st July.
The figure for nitrogen as a three-year average up to 1951–52 was 207,300 tons and the estimated figure for 1954–55 was 240,000 tons, so we have an increase there of nearly 33,000 tons. For phosphates, the three-year average up to 1951–52 of 285,300 tons is estimated to have gone up to 345,000 tons in 1954–55—a substantial increase of nearly 60,000 tons. For potash the three-year average figure was 210,900 tons and that is estimated to have gone up to 250,000 tons. Those figures show quite a healthy increase moving in the direction that we all wish to go.

Mr. J. Johnson: It might be more helpful if the Joint Parliamentary Secretary expressed the figure as a percentage increase in tonnage and a percentage increase, perhaps, in the spending of the actual taxpayers' money.

Mr. Nugent: It will be impossible for me to give every right hon. and hon. Member the figures in exactly the form he wants them. I think that the House will know that when I am replying to


such debates as this I give all the information that we have. If I do not give exact percentages, I do not doubt that the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) is a good mathematician and can work them out for himself.
I can now give the prices, which run roughly over the same period. In July, 1951, the price for nitrogen—sulphate of ammonia, which is the main form in which nitrogen is used—was £15 15s. a ton, and today it is £20 7s. a ton. That includes the latest price increases.

Mr. Dye: Is not the hon. Gentleman comparing two different periods of the year? It is always cheapest in July and at this time of the year it is always dearest.

Mr. Nugent: I can give the hon. Gentleman the figure for last July if he likes, but that will not help him because the price last July was £18 5s.—a good deal lower. If right hon. and hon. Members take today's figure which I have given they will find that it is quite a fair indication of what the price increase has been over the period.
Phosphorus—that is, superphosphate—was £14 13s. 6d. in July, 1951, and is now running at £14 8s. 6d. There is a slight decrease there. I shall not trouble the House with the figures for potash and other qualities of phosphorus, because those I have given are sufficient to give the main trends. They show that with phosphates there is almost no change—the price has gone down slightly—while nitrogen shows an increase, and quite a considerable increase, since last year.
It is true that these fertilisers are mainly in the hands of two firms—indeed, nitrogen is mainly in the hands of one firm. Our control over fertilisers is only general. When general fertiliser control came to an end we left the industries free to serve the community as well as they could, and, naturally, we have kept a close eye on their operations to assure ourselves that they are giving good value to the farming community and that we are getting good value for the large subsidies which we are putting into the industry.
We get quite a useful guide as to what sort of value our farmers are getting in nitrogen if we refer to the relevant O.E.E.C. Report. The last one, which dealt with the matter of comparative fartiliser prices in different countries, showed

that our farmers were getting their nitrogen cheaper than almost anyone else. In fact, the nitrogen price in this country is significantly lower than the price to the export markets. The manufacturers concerned do give a preference to this market and generally do their best to satisfy it before they go into the export market where they have a very considerable involvement—

Mr. Slater: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that a 33⅓ per cent. increase in the price of nitrogen is rather steep?

Mr. Nugent: We had some direct experience of nitrogen manufacture during the period of control. The Ministry of Supply was directly responsible for the operation of a nitrogen factory and the experience at that time was that margins were no more than sufficient for us to break even. Constructing on that experience, nitrogen prices seem to us to be very reasonable today. We do, in fact, receive complaints from the few small marginal suppliers of nitrogen that the present prices are not sufficient.
I think that the best and most reliable indirect information we can get is from the O.E.C.C.—or the F.A.O., one or the other—price survey in other countries, which indicates that despite price increases we are still getting our nitrogen rather cheaply. Our assessment is that we have not been badly served in this respect. Further than that I cannot go, but in due course we shall receive the Report of the Monopolies Commission which will, no doubt, give the whole picture in detail. Our responsibility is to see that good value is being given, and such information as we can get does, I think, show that these people are giving good value.
Turning to phosphates, I would just point out that the prices I have given show a slight decrease over the years, although many of the costs have increased. I noticed that in the last annual report of Fisons the chairman remarked that, although their volume of business had considerably increased, their profit margins had decreased, indicating that they were trying to pass on to the consumer some of the benefit of their extra business. It seems to us that generally, although fertiliser manufacture is largely controlled by two firms, the farming community has been getting good value.
There certainly are anxieties about supply. There is no doubt that demand today is almost up to capacity, especially for nitrogen but, as I have already said, the main supplying firm gives preference to the home market and does its utmost to supply it. I understand that both I.C.I. and Shell, in association with Fisons, have plans for expansion of nitrogen production so that in the course of a few years the supply should be more ample. Indeed, we hope so.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Dye: The difficulty arises because of the demands at this time of the year. If the farmers buy their notrogen earlier they get no rebate on it and run the danger of losing on storage. If the suppliers of nitrogenous fertilisers would give a rebate on early sales in the summer and autumn I am sure they would overcome the difficulties that arise at this time of the year.

Mr. Nugent: These rebates may be given, but I am afraid that there are always some farmers who will not order fertiliser until they want it. Judging by the price increase I have indicated to the House, the farmers who bought last autumn would have benefited very substantially. Every farmer knows that now is the peak demand for fertilisers, and every farmer knows that if he wants to be sure of getting his supply he must order in good time. Therefore, I do not think there is a great deal in the hon. Member's intervention. In any event, both these big manufacturers are expanding production, and we hope that they will succeed with their projects and thereby give us a more ample supply.
It is relevant to that to say one word on the rate of subsidy, about which the hon. Member for Rugby particularly asked, and to which my hon. Friend has agreed. We want the maximum use of fertilisers. We must have regard, on the one hand, to what the land needs, and, on the other, to what supply is available, and we must not stimulate the use of nitrogen any further at the present time or else we shall run the risk that there simply will not be enough to meet the demand. We think that there will be enough to meet the demand this year, although some people who ordered late may find that they have not got it just when they want it.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley asked for figures of what increase there has been in lime usage. The year 1953 to 1954 was very good, and the usage was 6·4 million tons. In 1954 to 1955, the usage was 4·7 million tons. Hon. Members will recollect that that was a very difficult year; that it was a very wet and bad year. In the last year, 1955 to 1956, the usage was a record usage of 7·2 million tons. The farmers were, I think, a good deal encouraged by the higher rate of subsidy. We were giving to up to 77 per cent. during the summer months, giving them thereby further help in the application of lime.
We have direct control on lime. We take direct costings of the operations of the lime contractors, and we watch very closely to see that the margins are no more than sufficient. The House will know that lime contractors are very numerous. There are some very big ones; on the other hand, there is a multiplicity of small ones. They all give good service. Therefore, we have to fix the margins at a level sufficient to enable the small people to get a living, and that naturally enables the bigger ones to do fairly well. We are glad they do. We want this lime on the soil.
As several hon. Friends of mine have said, the first necessity in fertilising the land is to see that, in the technical jargon, the pH, the acidity is taken out of the land before any other fertiliser is applied. Therefore, lime is basic. That is why we give such a big rate of subsidy. The effect is undoubtedly very beneficial indeed.
I have some optimum figures which, I think, will answer the question put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) as to what optimum figures there are for fertilisers. An estimate made in 1952 of the level of consumption obtained by applying optimum dressings to all fields in the United Kingdom gave a total optimum usage of about 450,000 tons of nitrogen, 560,000 tons of phosphate and 340,000 tons of potash. Current consumption is only 55 per cent. of nitrogen, 60 per cent. of phosphate and 74 per cent. of potash of these figures. These figures are all of pure nitrogen, phosphate and potash and will have to be converted to indicate the tonnages of sulphate, ammonia or superphosphate.
Reverting for a minute to lime and a question asked by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater), dolomite is used and does qualify. To check usage of any lime-containing substance, we check its calcium content and the subsidy is paid on that. If the lime content exceeds that proportion a greater tonnage has to be used, and a smaller rate is paid per ton. That aspect of it is carefully checked. We are very delighted if contractors find some other lime-containing substance which is lying idle and put it on the fields where it will do good.
I think that the general picture of lime usage should satisfy the House, and that the House should be satisfied that we are getting good value for our money. Although we do not have any general control of fertiliser application I hope that the general indications I have given will be sufficient to reassure the House that we shall get good value.

Mr. J. Johnson: Does this anticipate a subsidy of £5 million or £6 million, perhaps more, upon lime fertilisers in future?

Mr. Nugent: No. I think that the actual rate for lime is enough. As the hon. Member knows, we work on a seasonal scale up to 70 per cent. during the summer months, and that, I think, is enough. That leaves the farmer to pay for only 30 per cent. If the farmer paid for less than that he would not have sufficient incentive to ensure getting full value, full weight and so on. This is an essential part of the check. Whatever quantity of lime farmers like to use, we think the present percentage rate of subsidy is enough.
I have no figures in my head of what would be the optimum amount of lime needed for all our land, but I can assure the hon. Member that although I think this increase is good and satisfactory there is still a long way to go and a great deal of land to which it could be applied—a good deal in his part of the world as well, especially on those clay lands.
I think the hon. Member was out of the Chamber for a minute when I was dealing with the fertiliser position, which is largely governed by practical considerations—how far we think it would be useful to go in the way of subsidy, having proper regard to what supplies are available at the present time, and how demand

at present equals the supply, and how it would be unrealistic to increase that demand further.
I have given figures of optimum usage of nitrogen and phosphate, and it can be seen from them that there is considerable scope for further usage. My right hon. Friend will be guided by the supply position in deciding whether more or less is desirable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) asked whether we could extend the subsidy to cover sewage sludge, which often has a lime content. The answer is that we find it impossible for the subsidy to cover organic fertiliser owing to the difficulty of calculating the content, which varies so much.
One of my hon. Friends spoke about the condition of the hill farms and said that it was a hardship that not more than 50 per cent. grant was given even for the worst land. I would remind him that where big capital grants are given, these hill farming schemes are intended for land which, by the nature of the contour and of the soil, is poor and difficult to work. Therefore, in the main these very big capital grants are intended for the more difficult marginal types of soil, but I can give my hon. Friend the comfort that we have made a provision this year to extend the marginal production scheme. This will give a higher rate of grant for those who occupy particularly difficult land.

Mr. T. Williams: Is it not also true that, apart altogether from the 50 per cent. grant provided by the hill farming improvement scheme, the hill sheep and hill cattle subsidies are something extra and, therefore, the farmer receives 50 per cent. plus and not merely 50 per cent.?

Mr. Nugent: Yes, the hill farming scheme is a capital grant and on top of that the farmer gets whatever current subsidy there may be. Therefore, in the total he might receive a very great deal more.
The right hon. Member asked me about the hill sheep payment and hill cattle payment. The hill sheep payment was made at the 1955 Annual Price Review and was a special award to take account of the particularly bad winter these farmers had had and the special difficulties which they encountered at that time.


The hill cattle award is, of course, directed to the increased price of hill cattle which was higher than we had estimated. I can certainly confirm that the presence of these cattle on the hill is having a most beneficial effect on the pastures there. The cattle are strong and heavy enough to break down the bracken and break back the brambles, and to eat a good many things which sheep cannot eat and to improve the pasture there generally. There is no doubt, therefore, that we are getting good value from that Supplementary Estimate.
I was asked about the minimum quantity of fertiliser which qualifies for a subsidy. The answer is that there is a 4 cwt. minimum. The House will remember from our discussions of fertiliser subsidies that this subsidy is intended for commercial farmers and horticulturists, and 4 cwt. is a small amount for any commercial man to buy. This subsidy is not intended for private gardeners. Very small smallholders have an opportunity of combining together into a co-operative society to buy larger quantities of fertiliser which they can then break down to meet their needs.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) asked about the British Sugar Corporation's loss. In the two previous years the Corporation made a profit. The loss made in the accounting year with which we are concerned was due to the exceptionally bad weather in 1954 which resulted in a lower yield and a lower sugar content. That figure is the figure after paying Excise Duty, which amounts to something like twice the loss recorded in the statement accompanying this Estimate. I have not the precise figures, but over recent years the Corporation has been showing a profit.

6.15 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: I am very grateful for that information. Will my hon. Friend deal with the other point—the use of fertiliser in connection with the prevention of fen blowing?

Mr. Nugent: My hon. and gallant Friend spoke about the dangers of erosion. I felt that that was going a little wide of the Supplementary Estimate, though I agree that the use of fertiliser on crops in early stages of growth

secures a covering on the ground before it dries out and significantly helps in preventing erosion. To that extent, I entirely agree that the use of fertiliser is a very sound practice.
Finally, I can assure the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) that there has been an increase of 10 million gallons in liquid milk consumption in the last six or eight months. It is true that in 1951 and 1954 there was a 3 per cent. decrease and the following 12 months were almost stationary, but in the last six or eight months there has been a welcome upward trend. I confirm, what my right hon. Friend has already said, that it is Government policy to maintain a high level of liquid milk consumption and to do anything we can to stimulate that consumption and assist the Milk Marketing Board in keeping it as high as possible. We agree that liquid milk in particular is a product of the highest nutritional value. Both in welfare schemes and for general consumption we want to see the highest possible use made of it.
As will be seen from the Estimate, the Milk Marketing Board has managed to reduce costs by higher realisations, not only through expansion of the liquid milk market but also through better realisation in manufacturing which has brought in a higher sum than we originally anticipated. Together, the two accounts have brought in a sum of £3·8 million and, therefore, there is some offset against the higher cost of distribution in the last February Review award to which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North referred.
I believe that I have now dealt with the many points raised in the debate and I hope that the House will now be prepared to approve the Estimate.

Question put and agreed to.

Third Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

Mr. T. Williams: I have two modest observations to make on the third Vote, but I promise the Minister that neither will be highly controversial. I am rather pleased to see that we have to find £378,000 for drainage, because I rate drainage either as the first requirement or at least second only to fertilisers as a real service to agriculture. I do not know the


man who can get any value out of his fertilisers if his land is not drained or the man who, if his land is drained can farm it effectively and efficiently with or without fertilisers.
I am pleased to see that a scheme has been arranged whereby advances can be made while the work is in progress. I am convinced that the river catchment boards are doing a first-class job. I set them up, but I do not want to dwell on that point. They are useful bodies, and even fishermen, who were hesitant to welcome them in the early days, are now beginning to realise that the catchment boards
are the fishermen's friends.
Subhead C.2.—Land Settlements Estate—is a residue of the wicked Tory days of the 'twenties and 'thirties, when unemployment was rife. I will not go into that, Sir, lest you tell me that I am out of order, but we are still spending £1,800,000 upon their administration. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether, over recent years, cooperation has been promoted and intensified, and that there is greater activity at the centre in the purchasing and retailing of requisites to those on land settlement estates than in the early days. It took a long time to teach individuals to value that co-operation, but I know that it has been growing over the years and I hope that these estates have reached a high state of efficiency now.
Under Subhead C.4.—Smallholdings—I see that £60,000 extra is required for loans. This is to be expected. Either it is because those concerned are expanding their businesses or because their incomes are contracting. They must have capital to carry on, and £60,000 for all the smallholdings in the country is a modest figure about which no one can afford to complain.
On Subhead K.10.—Governmentowned Cold Stores—I want to ask my last question on this Vote. A company called National Cold Stores (Management) Limited has been set up to take control of Government-owned cold stores. The arrangement is that the Government find the capital and leave the administration in the hands of what is presumably a semi-private company. Are there any Government directors on the board of this company? Is there any limitation of profits? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the terms and arrangements entered

into by the Government with this company which they have deemed it wise to set up? Presumably it is the best thing to have done.

Major Legge-Bourke: I must apologise to the House, and to you Sir, for the fact that the point I am raising has the air of being a constituency point, but it is in order under Subhead A.1 (b) which asks for an extra £358,000 for grants to catchment boards and river boards under the Land Drainage Act, 1930, as extended by the River Boards Act, 1948, including contributions to loan charges. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said how important drainage is to British agriculture, and I agree. My own constituency sinks or swims by drainage, and it is only because men have got together in the past that the area is as productive as it is.
As the House will remember, in 1947 a great deal of my constituency was put under water and, as a result, a great flood protection scheme was developed. This Vote covers contributions to loan charges on grants made to catchment boards and river boards under those two Acts—

Mr. Speaker: Is that money covered by the Supplementary Estimate?

Major Legge-Bourke: Yes, Sir. As I think you are aware, there has been an increase in the rate of interest on borrowing over the last few years. There is a 90 per cent. grant to enable this work to be carried out and the interest on the remaining 10 per cent. is carried by the river boards. To enable them to pay that, a grant is made to them under Subhead A.1 to pay for the work they are doing.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member will forgive me for interrupting, but is that money provided under the main Vote or under the Supplementary Estimate? I am not clear about that.

Major Legge-Bourke: As a result of the decision about the rate of interest to be charged on loans, there has been an increase in the amount charged. That appears under this Vote and for all river boards this year amounts to £358,000. Some part of that amount is due to the increase in the grant which is being made by the Ministry to the Great Ouse


River Board to enable it to pay the increased charges on the 10 per cent. of the total capital works it is carrying out under the flood protection scheme. That scheme is designed to prevent a flood similar to the one in 1947.
I am particularly anxious because recently I heard the chairman of that river board make a speech. May I say here that the chairman is well known to me and that I have great respect for him. He made this observation:
As a result of the credit squeeze, the cost of the flood protection scheme will be exactly double what it would have been if the board had been able to borrow money at the rate operating when the work commenced.
I am anxious to remain strictly in order, Sir, but I want to ask whether that is an accurate statement or not. If I am right, so far from the scheme costing double what it would have done, what has increased since the work first began is the rate of interest that is to be charged on the money borrowed. When borrowing began the interest was at the rate of 3 per cent. and it is now at the rate of 5¼ per cent. Of course, the amount of money now borrowed is a great deal more than was borrowed when the rate of interest was at 3 per cent. As the scheme develops, so the amount of money borrowed will increase, and so the amount that has to be paid, even if the interest remained constant, becomes greater and greater each year as the work goes on. The cost will eventually be £5 million and perhaps even more when the provisions of Subhead A.3 are developed.
My main point is that my right hon. Friend might have a case here for arguing whether this scheme ought to come under the same heading of borrowing, as all local authority schemes come under. It seems to me that some part of the £358,000 is involved in enabling the river boards to pay increased interest. I can see that in the ordinary way we want local authorities to play their part in restricting capital development, but this is a scheme which cannot be stopped halfway. It has to be completed or not done at all. It is a matter of public safety as well as being necessary in order to ensure the fullest possible production from the land.
It happens that the floods in the Fens have occurred on the average once every

ten years, and as we are now getting near to the tenth year since the 1947 flood I hope that nothing will be done to impede this work. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would have a word with the Chancellor to ascertain whether any scheme involving the safety of the public could be given different treatment in regard to rates of interest compared with other work carried out by local authorities. River boards are local authorities, being rating bodies.
6.30 p.m.
I wish to say a word or two about smallholdings. I have a particular reason to be interested in the subject because my grandfather piloted the 1906 Measure through the House, and, in addition, I have many smallholdings in my constituency. I should like to know whether the increase in grants to the tune of £60,000 has in any way benefited my constituency. I feel that we are entitled to ensure that the money which has been voted has been wisely spent. I do not believe there is an area more suited to smallholdings, both part-time and full-time, than the Isle of Ely.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is entitled to ask his question—whether it can be answered or not I do not know—but the general subject of smallholdings is not raised by the Supplementary Estimate.

Major Legge-Bourke: I agree that the sum of £60,000 is a trivial one compared with our total Budget, Mr. Speaker, but surely it is our duty to make sure that the money is spent where it can most suitably be used. There was a time when smallholdings were started in unsuitable areas, and we know what happened to them. I want to make sure that the £60,000 has been spent on smallholdings in the right parts of the country which are worth encouraging.

Mr. Nugent: On a point of order. I wonder whether I might assist the House, Mr. Speaker. The grant is for loans to smallholders. It relates to smallholders as individuals. The money is not for starting or equipping new smallholdings.

Major Legge-Bourke: I am delighted to hear that. I had already realised it. It certainly confirms my supposition. I want to be sure that the smallholders who are being helped are in areas where we


want to encourage smallholdings and not in areas where we want to discourage them. The views of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye)—who is a member of the National Smallholdings Advisory Council do not coincide with mine in relation to part-time holdings.
I want to make sure that the money is going to the men who will take most advantage of it in increasing production. Smallholdings in the area which I represent have much better prospects tthan those in other parts of the country. That is why I hope that we shall be allowed to know where most of the £60,000 has gone.
I am glad that more is being spent on smallholdings and land settlement estates, for I am convinced that they have an enormously important part to play. I should like even greater encouragement to be given to the type of development which the Land Settlement Association has made such a success. If we can show smallholders that the Government mean to encourage the efficient ones, we shall have done a good job.

Mr. Dye: I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) will not mind if I do not follow him in his remarks and even if I disagree with his statement about land settlement estates. We are being asked to approve a sum of £357,000 as an additional subsidy to the Land Settlement Association. That indicates not that the Association has been a success, but that it is failing and requires more money to be put into it.
As the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, I am a member of the National Smallholdings Advisory Council, and I was appointed to a sub-committee to investigate the organisation of the Land Settlement Association. We went into it very carefully and made suggestions for improving the organisation. We thought that it would in future be less dependent upon the National Exchequer. Consequently, I am very disappointed to find the Ministry now asking for an additional amount, and I should like to know why it is being requested. There is a reference to an expansion in trading activities. I should have thought that in that event the Association would have required less assistance of this form.
Surely something has gone wrong with the Association. Why has not the right hon. Gentleman referred the matter again to the National Smallholdings Advisory Council so that the position of the Association can be investigated? Surely if this type of agriculture or horticulture is more prosperous than it used to be, the Association should require less Exchequer assistance? Has something gone wrong in the management of the Association? Does it lack business ability? The management was reorganised, and I should have thought that it would now have been able to manage with very much less assistance.
The additional amount requested for loans to smallholders is rather small. If we were to encourage our smallholdings as we ought to do, to encourage farm workers with adequate experience and knowledge to apply for them and to enable them to be properly equipped when starting, I should have thought that a great deal more in loans would have been required so that the smallholdings might be turned into profitable ventures.
I should be glad to have answers to two questions. In the light of the prospects of a few years ago, has something gone wrong with the management of the Land Settlement Association? Also, are we doing all we should do in the way of loans in present circumstances to encourage farm workers to go in for smallholdings?

Air Commodore Harvey: I am very pleased to see that another £378,000 is being spent on drainage. I should like to know in what part of the country the money is being spent. Is it evenly distributed so that each county gets its fair share?
Earlier today my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), probably quite rightly, was criticising county agricultural executive committees. In my constituency and in respect of my small farm in Surrey I have had nothing but happy experiences of county agricultural executive committees. I have always found them helpful and ready to give advice. The drainage work that they carry out is first-class. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could make more farmers aware of the fact that such a service is available. The work is very well carried out and the price is fairly moderate.
The subsidy on fertilisers was increased last year, and the drainage subsidy ought to be increased likewise. It is illogical to increase one and not the other. If the ground is not drained properly, one will not get the best results from the use of fertilisers. I urge my right hon. Friend to look into the matter. I know that it is asking for increased expenditure, but when we are trying to save expenditure on food produced overseas surely it would be wise to spend another £1 million or £2 million, if necessary, on land drainage to ensure that our land gives the very best results. Otherwise, crops are frequently ruined and wasted if we get a rainy season.
The third thing I want to ask him about is whether he is sure that the money is well spent, and whether, when a farm receives a subsidy for drainage work, the adjacent farms are brought into step so that they do likewise; otherwise, very frequently, a lot of work put in on one farm can be nullified by another not having had its ditches cleaned out at the same time.
I should also like to ask my right hon. Friend about this cold storage business. Am I right in assuming that these plants were put up originally to deal with a glut of herrings? I remember that a few years ago the Labour Government stated that that problem would be dealt with by the provision of extra cold storage facilities in the North of England, and that is probably very well worth doing. I want to ask whether it also applies to meat and other home production. The House is entitled to have more information about it to know how it is run, who is in charge of it, and what services it is rendering to the taxpayer. It is probably a very necessary business, but we should have very much more about it.
If it is Government-owned, I should like to see industrialists, men who understand the business, contributing towards the operation of this cold storage plant. Frequently, the two elements—Government money and free enterprise money—can work quite well together in trying to get the best out of both worlds, though there is one of them, at least, in which I do not believe. It is not a large sum which is involved, and if it is to be a worthwhile effort, it will have to be a

very much larger figure than is shown in the estimates.

Mr. J. Johnson: I should like to ask two short questions relating to land drainage and smallholdings.
First, I hope I may keep in order, because this is partly a constituency matter. Of course, I very much welcome the provision of the £358,000 in the Estimate, because the more we spend here the better I like it, both for the actual improvement of farmland and the cleaning out of ditches and other watercourses. I should like to ask the Minister how much of this money went to the Severn Catchment Board, if it is in order for the Minister to give detailed figures.
In my constituency, there are some villages, notably Willoughby and Princethorpe, which are flooded at certain times of the year. We cannot find out upon whom the responsibility of draining the land and cleaning out the ditches devolves. The county council does not seem to be able to make up its mind, nor does the land agent for the county, and the matter seems to revolve from one authority to another. I should like to know how much the Severn Catchment Board spent last year and whether it is in order for that authority to take up matters of this kind. We find that if our local councils clean out the village ditches, it is only a temporary salvage operation, because the farmland down the valley towards the Severn is not cleaned out as it should be, so that the water comes back into these villages. Therefore, I ask how much the Severn Board is spending and what work it is doing.
The other point, about smallholdings, is, again, a matter of interest to the Midlands, and particularly Warwickshire. The £60,000 which is mentioned in the Supplementary Estimate is stated to be required as more applications have been received from people wanting smallholdings than the Minister expected at the beginning of the year. Is it fair to ask the Minister what amount of money has been earmarked for Warwickshire, because very often smallholders there do not receive the encouragement they desire. Often, they are wanting more money, and do not seem to be able to get it.
I wonder whether the provision of this sum is due to more money being given to individual smallholders. particularly in


the Midlands, or whether this £60,000 is due in the main to increased loan charges as a result of the monetary policy of the Government.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Crouch: I welcome the opportunity of supporting this Vote for land drainage, and I am very pleased to see, in page 112 of the Supplementary Estimates, the reason for requiring this sum of £378,000. The explanation provided under Subhead A.1 states that this sum is required—
mainly because more progress has been made than was expected with assisted schemes, and because changes have been made in the arrangements for issuing advances as work proceeds.
I think that is very satisfactory, and I should like to compliment my right hon. Friend on speeding up land drainage work. I see that by far the greater part of this sum is being spent on grants to catchment boards and river boards under the Land Drainage Acts, 1930 and 1948.
In the discussion on the previous Vote, I mentioned the necessity of having lime as well as fertilisers where one wishes to grow crops, particularly grass, but it would be quite useless to spend money on lime and fertilisers unless the land is adequately drained. I have seen a great change take place during the last 20 years as a result of the work of the catchment boards. Much land that was formerly waterlogged is now productive as a result of that work, which applies not only to land bordering on rivers, but also to land that is covered by the Hill Farming Act.
It is surprising to find how much hill land is waterlogged, but, once the water has been adequately and efficiently removed, it is also surprising how, with good husbandry and the application of lime and fertilisers, additional crops can very quickly be grown. Since this matter affects my own area, I would, in particular, like to congratulate the Avon & Stour Catchment Board for the excellent work which it has done. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) does not realise that there is a River Avon and a River Stour in Hampshire as well.

Mr. Nabarro: There is a River Stour in Worcestershire.

Mr. Crouch: Oh, is there? I was particularly interested in this matter when

going over land by the River Allen, which, for about half a century, had just been waterlogged, and I know that as a result of the board's work, this land became very useful and very productive land. In a few years' time, I have no doubt it will be much more productive than it is at present.

Mr. Speaker: I am not quite sure whether the matter to which the hon. Member is directing our attention arises on this Supplementary Estimate or on the main Estimate?

Mr. Crouch: I think a part of it, because this scheme was proceeding over this land three or four years' ago, and I noticed the other day that there were still further developments on that particular estate, so that I hope I am in order in mentioning it.
Mention has been made of smallholdings. I have seen land which is now used as smallholdings which was formerly waterlogged, but of which very good use is now being made, and I suggest that any work that can be done on the drainage of land is at all times a very good investment.

Mr. G. Jeger: We are all united on the advantages of improving the drainage of agricultural land. There is no disagreement anywhere about that.
I should like to ask the Minister a question about the land drainage grants for which we are asked to vote the additional sum of £378,000 tonight. I should like to know how much, if any, of it is being devoted to the drainage of land which has been waterlogged owing to mining subsidence. The Minister is now aware that this is a pressing agricultural problem in many part of the country, and he was kind enough to intimate to me on a previous occasion, in reply to a question when I raised the matter, that this problem was occupying his mind and the minds of other Ministers.
I should like him to tell us today whether this question enters at all into this sum of £378,000, and whether, in particular, the 3,000 acres of land in the neighbourhood of Goole which need draining are being catered for in this Estimate. It is, however a national as well as a local problem and I hope the Minister will be able to give us some information which will bring comfort to


the hearts of farmers in agricultural areas surrounding the coal mines.
My next subject has more of a local constituency interest, but I offer no excuse for that because it is very important indeed. We have been bothered by the River Ouse flooding its banks and causing difficulties, not merely to surrounding villages, but to agricultural land bordering on those villages and to land some distance away. In the Ouse and Trent areas are about 50,000 acres of good agricultural land which will be subjected to very severe flooding from the River Ouse if something is not done very soon to raise the level of the embankment. Does the grant of £378,000 include any amount for that work which will help to safeguard those 50,000 acres?
In my constituency, farmers are anxiously watching the tides. They know that drainage authorities are very responsible bodies and they know that in his wisdom the Minister scatters his largesse and encouragement in accordance with the urgency in each situation. Does he consider that our local situation is urgent and that it requires a grant? I should be very interested to know how much of the £378,000 is for increased rates of interest on loan charges. We are very interested to know that. The increased interest rate has resulted in rising costs to all local authorities, whether drainage or local government authorities.
The last point with which I want to deal is that concerning National Cold Stores (Management), Limited. The sum of £350,000 is asked and we are told that
This provision includes an advance on account of a deficiency expected to arise.…
I should like more information about that deficiency. I have no objection to a State organisation operating on a deficiency. In those circumstances it is providing a service to the community which if not paid for in one direction, is paid for in another. However, I should like further details about the deficiency which is expected to arise. Is it due to good management at such low charges that a service to the community is provided without wishing to make a profit, or is it due to bad management which can be corrected so that the cold stores could be made to pay their way?
The cold stores are indeed fulfilling a national purpose. No housewife these

days who can afford to buy frozen vegetables would disparage the National Cold Stores. Today, vegetables are very scarce and dear and cold storage is obviously of great interest. I hope we shall have an extension of cold storage and that we shall be told how much of this £350,000 will be devoted to meeting the deficiency and how much to an extension of the service.

Mr. Nabarro: I was inhibited in talking about county agricultural machinery services under Class VIII, Vote 1, because, Mr. Speaker, you ruled that I might talk only about the increases of salaries of such persons employed within those services. I now feel somewhat freer, for I see that under "Emergency Services" there is Subhead N.1—Capital Costs, which says:
Additional provision required for expenditure on vehicles, plant and equipment, owing to delay of certain items provision for which was made in 1954–55…£52,000.
I cannot be certain, but I believe that there can be no explanation of this fact other than that the agricultural executive committees have increased their stocks of agricultural machinery for contracting work, and it is that which I wish very strongly to deprecate.
In the course of replying to me earlier today, my right hon. Friend made two valuable points. He assured me that these services now pay their way. I congratulate him. He said that they were being wound up as far as possible where private enterprise contractors demonstrated that they had available facilities to undertake such services as were formerly carried out by the agricultural executive committees.
I want to refer my right hon. Friend to the County of Worcestershire. The private enterprise agricultural contractors in Worcestershire can carry out any and all of the services required by farmers, including land drainage. They have very amply demonstrated that to me in the course of the last few weeks. Yet at the same time the county agricultural executive committee has been buying new machinery. As the principle is here involved, can my right hon. Friend tell me why the committee is buying additional machinery for a State trading service when private enterprise is perfectly able to do the job and already has


the necessary plant, equipment and machinery?
That is the sort of thing which accounts for this item of £52,000. My right hon. Friend has said that he is anxious to terminate these trading services by the agricultural executive committees as early as possible. I hope that he will direct his attention to the position in Worcestershire and in the course of the next few weeks send me a letter, justifying why additional public funds should be devoted to a State trading service which is supposed to be an emergency service, and which I aver is no longer necessary. The whole of the work should be turned over, without delay, to private enterprise contractors, who are readily able to carry out the work to the satisfaction of the farming community.
Also, I wish to deprecate, as a second example of the extension of State trading, the expenditure of £350,000 under Subhead K.10.—Government-owned Cold Stores: Provision of Working Capital. What are a Tory Government doing extending nationalisation?

Mr. T. Williams: Nothing.

Mr. Nabarro: The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) says, "Nothing." He is primarily an advocate of nationalisation and I am primarily and fundamentally opposed to nationalisation. I view with great disquiet and concern that my right hon. Friend should come to the House for £350,000 to create a quasi-nationalised industry and additional State trading services, when the work could be done, including the provision of capital by private enterprise, and by cold-storage companies which have long experience of this class of business.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. J. Johnson: I find it difficult to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument and his almost pathological attitude towards agricultural executive committees a few moments ago—

Mr. Nabarro: I have left that, Mr. Speaker; I dealt with that ten minutes ago. The hon. Gentleman has been asleep.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are now dealing with cold stores.

Mr. Nabarro: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for your protection. I was in need of it.
I was dealing with the item of £350,000 which the Government have spent on cold stores. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) said that might be for herring. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) followed on and said it might be for vegetables. Both are wrong—

Mr. Johnson: I deny that I said a word about cold herring, or cold Kidderminster, or anything else.

Mr. Nabarro: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. The bright suggestion about vegetables came from his hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger).
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield talked about cold stores for herring and the hon. Member for Goole talked about them being for vegetables. I am not in the least interested in what the cold stores are used for. I am interested in a primary and fundamental point of Conservative policy—that there shall be no extension of nationalisation. When he replies, I desire my right hon. Friend to tell me, first, what efforts were made by his Department to get private firms to carry out this work, and, secondly, what efforts were made by his Department to get private enterprise business to provide this £350,000. I might add that whatever reply he gives me, he will not have my very enthusiastic support for an item of this magnitude which, manifestly, is an extension of State trading services.
It does not matter in what field one looks today, one finds the State interfering with commercial intercourse, commercial practice and the conduct of business; whether it electricity boards, agricultural machinery services—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot discuss electricity boards on this Suppelmentary
Estimate.

Mr. Nabarro: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
Whether it is agricultural machinery services or cold stores, the principle is the same in every case. Though, of course, I cannot vote against this Supplementary Estimate—I cannot go so far as that—I want my right hon. Friend to


know, in terms of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power, that by his action in including the item of £350,000 for a further State trading Service, in this Supplementary Estimate, he has incurred my gravest displeasure.

Mr. Willey: I wish to say a word about the apprehensions expressed regarding this provision for cold stores. Unlike the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), my apprehension is based not on ignorance of the position, but on knowledge of it. It is because this £350,000 is being paid to bolster private enterprise that we have some disquiet about it. The hon. Member for Kidderminster will probably recall that this matter was debated in the House some time ago when my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) moved a Prayer and many hon. Members on this side of the House supported him.
We believe that this represents a further step in the sacrifice of public enterprise to private enterprise. The hon. Member for Kidderminster will recall that during the war the Government built forty-eight modern cold stores at a cost of about £7 million and that, unfortunately, in January, 1940, at a luncheon to the British Association of Refrigeration, the then Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Food gave an assurance that the Government cold stores would not be operated in competition with private cold stores.

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Willey: It is as an implementation of that pledge, which was confirmed later by Lord Woolton, that the action of setting up the National Cold Stores (Management) Limited, was taken. I do not wish to debate the general principle, because in doing so I should probably be out of order. But we expressed the view then, and we still hold the view that in the new circumstances now obtaining this pledge ought to have been reviewed; that any Government with a sense of responsibility for public property would have negotiated a new agreement with the trade. That was what the Postmaster-General failed to do. Consequently we got the setting-up of the National Cold Stores (Management) Limited, and we have this supplementary Estimate before us.

Mr. Nabarro: Surely, if the Government denationalised these wretched things and sold them back to private enterprise, this Vote would not be necessary?

Mr. Willey: The Vote arises in this way. The Government set up this company, consisting of Government nominees and cold storage interests, for the express purpose of preventing the publicly-owned and publicly-built cold stores from being used so as to prejudice privately-owned stores. That is the purpose of this operation. What disturbs us is that already, within a few months, the Government are saying that this will not only prejudice the taxpayer by preventing the stores from being used, but will cost the taxpayer money, because it will be expensive to prevent these stores from being properly used.

Mr. Nabarro: Denationalise.

Mr. Willey: This was quite contrary to the views of the Public Accounts Committee which said that special consideration should be given to ensuring that the fullest possible use should be made of Government stores. We have now an initial expenditure—I quite understand the anxiety of the hon. Member for Kidderminster about this, because it is only an initial expenditure—of £350,000 to prevent these stores being made use of to the advantage of the country, in disregard of the opinion of the Public Accounts Committee.
I would point out to the hon. Member for Kidderminster one of the arguments used by the Postmaster-General when we debated this matter previously. He explained to the House that one of the difficulties that arose was the
… tremendous increase in the amount of what might be termed individual refrigeration …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 23rd November, 1954; Vol. 533, c. 1196.]
In other words, he said—and it was the Government's case—that we are facing a position where the provision of refrigeration facilities is prejudiced by the fact that there has been an enormous increase in private refrigeration; people provide their own refrigeration. If that be the reason for a contraction in the demand for refrigeration services, it seems pernicious to me that the loss should fall solely on the publicly-owned cold stores. It seems quite wrong. If this be a new development and private traders are able


to provide for refrigeration themselves, it should affect both sections of the industry. We should not have a company set up for the express purpose of ensuring that the publicly-owned refrigeration plant shall be redundant.

Mr. Nabarro: Denationalise.

Mr. Willey: I have mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East because there is a well-equipped modern plant in Cardiff to which he has frequently called the attention of the House and which ought to be fully and profitably used. Here we have the position that not only has there been a sell-out to the trade, not only has there been a sacrifice of Government property, but quite unexpectedly—by this Supplementary Estimate the right hon. Gentleman is precluded from saying that he had this in mind at the time—we have a position where the right hon. Gentleman says, "Not only am I going to sterilise the use of cold stores built at public expense, not only shall I prejudice the country by preventing the use in many cases of stores which are modern and well-equipped, but I am telling the House that this will cost the taxpayer money and that this year alone we are to have an expenditure of £350,000."

Mr. Nabarro: Denationalise.

Mr. Willey: The hon. Member for Kidderminster has muttered, from a seated position, something about denationalisation.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman must not do me an injustice. I said that three times over in my speech. May I repeat, in case the hon. Gentleman has not grasped this simple point, that the Vote would not be before this House this afternoon if the Tory Party stuck to its policy and denationalised projects of this kind?

Mr. Willey: It is not for us on this side of the House to answer for the Tory Party. That task is beyond our capabilities. Let these publicly-owned stores go into competition with private enterprise. Do not preclude them from competing. What can be more crass and stupid than precluding them from competing is allowing them to impose a burden on the taxpayer. The Government are now to charge the taxpayer with the

cost of the care and maintenance of these stores.

Mr. Amory: Possibly the point does not arise strictly within the Supplementary Estimate, but I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow me to say how very glad we have been to notice, until just a moment ago, the presence with us again of the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch), after his severe illness. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We hope that he is fully restored to health.
One remark made by the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) was of fundamental importance. It was afterwards supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch). I agree with it wholeheartedly. It was that good drainage is the basis of good and successful husbandry in farming. The right hon. Gentleman was not quite sure whether it came before fertilisers, but I think that drainage does come first. I would pay a tribute to the patient and sometimes difficult work of the river boards. They do a tremendous amount of work which, because it is not always spectacular, may not always be properly appreciated. I do not often get a chance to pay them a tribute, and I am glad to take this opportunity of doing so.
The Land Settlement Association has been mentioned. I can say what will be comforting to a number of hon. Members who raised doubts on this subject; the Land Settlement Association is going well. No exceptional difficulties have arisen and I am very satisfied with the way in which it is being managed. A sum of £78,000 of the present figure of £357,900 includes additional loans paid to Welsh Co-operative societies which got into temporary need of additional resources. That has no bearing on the main Land Settlement Association.
On the trading expenditure of the Association, we are asking for an increase of £279,000. This is related to the question which the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-East (Mr. Dye) asked. On the other side, under the Appropriations in Aid, we are reckoning on increased trading receipts of £307,000. The need for the additional expenditure arises because the trading activities have been at a higher rate recently. The right hon. Member for Don Valley knows very well what they are—


supplies, machinery services, etc. That explanation fully and satisfactorily accounts for the higher figure.
7.15 p.m.
Next, I will refer to cold stores in a way which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) will consider satisfactory. We find ourselves with 47 Government-owned cold stores that we built early in the war at a cost of about £7 million. A definite pledge was then given to the industry that they would not be used after the war in competition with the trade. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) suggested that we might review that pledge. I do not think so. It was a specific pledge, and I consider that it ought to stand.

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Amory: We were faced with three practical alternatives. One was to sell the cold stores. There were practical difficulties. These cold stores were built in the right places during the war, but in the wrong places to be commercially convenient in peace-time. There was a very small demand indeed for buying them. I could not have sold many of them and those that I sold would have gone at a knock-down price. Again, I had to remember the pledge that they would not be used in competition with the trade. It is also of great advantage to the Government to have these cold stores available again for use in another emergency. So there were practical and formidable arguments against selling them.
Another alternative would have been just to put the cold stores on a care-and-maintenance basis. That course I rejected because it would have been considerably more expensive to the Government than the course we are following. This course is to try to get the advantages of commercial management. Therefore, we set up this company, which is being subscribed for not by the Government but by the trade, with an authorised capital of £50,000 and an actual capital of £10,000. It is managed by a board of directors, of which the Government appoint two, and these have over-riding powers on important questions. The arrangement is made that any deficit is paid by the Government, if any.

Mr. Ede: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "Government, if any"?

Mr. Amory: I meant "deficit, if any". Ten per cent. of the profit goes to the shareholders and the remainder comes back to the Government, if any.

Mr. Ede: I did not know that the Government had entirely abdicated.

Mr. Amory: I meant "profit, if any." There is a limit of £10,000 on the amount which can go to the shareholders. The most important part of the use that is to be made of these stores, in which the Government have a very real interest, is to store strategic stocks of the foodstuffs that are to be held. We could have done that by just retaining these stores under Government control in the ordinary way, but we should not have secured the advantages of commercial management.
The second use is that they will be available—in so far as they are not required for Government strategic stocks—for the use of private trade in areas where, in the judgment of the trade, there are not adequate commercial facilities available.

Mr. Willey: On the subject of strategic stocks, does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the stores will be converted to dry stores for that purpose?

Mr. Amory: A certain amount of conversion is going on in order to be able to introduce a controlled atmosphere in the stores. The amount of conversion required depends on the use that is to be made of the stores in any particular circumstances. The £350,000 is for working capital. I will give an indication of how the money is to be used. Of that sum, £150,000 is required for taking over by the company of certain subsidiary assets from my Ministry. Then £60,000 of it represents the commercial annual rent which is to be paid to the Ministry by the company. A sum of £35,000 is for imprests to individual stores for working capital, and £105,000 for other expenditure.
I believe that this solution which has been found is a practical and sensible arrangement for maintaining these stores in the most economical way, and that their maintenance will prove of very great value indeed to the Government and will


be the cheapest and most convenient way that we could possibly store a proportion of our strategic stocks of food.
The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) asked me one or two questions. He asked how much of this Supplementary Estimate for the drainage grants went to the Severn Catchment Board. It is impossible to say, because it is difficult to link a particular grant for a certain local authority to the Supplementary Estimate concerned, but if he will write to me about any particular points I will give him all the information I can.
The hon. Member for Rugby also raised a point which, I agree, is very important, and that is the responsibility for maintaining water courses which can damage the work done by other authorities or farmers. I agree with him that no really satisfactory solution to that problem has yet been found.

Mr. J. Johnson: Can the Minister tell the House when he hopes to implement the finding of the Heneage Committee, which sat under my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) some time ago?

Mr. Amory: One of the recommendations of the Heneage Committee referred to this matter, but, as I have recently said in the House, unfortunately I have not managed to secure sufficient general agreement at present to enable us to proceed on a broad front with the recommendations of the Heneage Committee. This point which the hon. Gentleman has raised is very much in my mind at present. County committees do what they can to help, but there are great practical difficulties.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about loans to smallholders. These loans, as he probably knows, may be up to three-quarters of the working capital that may be required on a smallholding. The numbers have gone up recently, partly because there has been an unusual number of changes of tenancies; the average amount has also gone up and this increase in the average amount is also partly responsible for the Supplementary Estimate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch) said that he could testify to the good results that accrued from drainage expenditure in his locality, and that is very much our

general experience. I should like to see it go still faster than it is going at present.
The hon. Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger) asked me, as I was afraid he would, a very difficult question about mining subsidence. I think I answered a question on this subject put by him the other day. It could be, and I think it may be, that some of this supplementary money may include work done on drainage as a result of mining subsidence. That is one of the reasons why river boards sometimes undertake improvement schemes, but I find it quite impossible to sort out the amount or to give any indication of how much it might be. Nor could I relate these Supplementary Estimates in any way to the local schemes that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, both of which I know about and both of which present real difficulties—the raising of the height of the banks of the Ouse and also the flooding of the land that he mentioned.
The question of loan charges is very difficult to explain. What happens is that when a river board decides to finance an improvement scheme it usually raises a loan for the whole of the expenditure and then the Ministry undertakes responsibility for the loan charges on the Ministry's share—that is to say, on the 85 or 90 per cent. as the case may be. What the Ministry does is to recoup the river board for loan charges on the Ministry's share, but not on the 15 or 10 per cent. which is the river board's own responsibility.
I think that I have already answered the question which the hon. Member for Goole asked me about the Land Settlement Association.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)—unusually, I think—just missed the target in what he said about the emergency services, because these services that are referred to in the Supplementary Estimate are nothing to do with the county agricultural executive committees or the goods and services scheme or the machinery service. They are solely related to the Ministry of Food emergency feeding plans and defence plans in the case of a national emergency.

Mr. Nabarro: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I was obviously out of order throughout, Mr. Speaker. None the less, I am sure that I might ask your indulgence to ask my right hon. Friend whether he will deal by letter with my valuable points.

Mr. Amory: I will certainly look into the matter of the Worcester County Agricultural Executive Committee's machinery service. On the present basis, as I explained earlier, when, in our opinion, there are no private enterprise services available, and there is a need for the work, we are providing the machinery with which the county committees may do that work efficiently. I am glad to join in the tributes that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) paid to the work of the county agricultural executive committees.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) raised several points. I think I have already referred to the loan charges position on the land drainage grants, but I am not quite certain that I understood correctly the point that he was making. I shall be glad if he will write to me on the subject, when I will certainly look into it and see if there is anything that we can do to help. My hon. and gallant Friend asked me whether the Government could meet some of the expenditure on the interest rates in the case of the river board.

Major Legge-Bourke: I want to make it clear that I was referring to a very exceptional part of the work, namely where national danger is involved.

Mr. Amory: As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, where there is a question of danger we have tried to be as generous as we possibly can; we always try to be in our interpretation of the regulations. If my hon. and gallant Friend feels that we are being less than generous, I hope that he will write to me about it.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely also asked me about the suitability of smallholdings in connection with these loans. I agree that particularly in the earlier days many smallholdings were bought and fitted up at great expense which were not really suitable as smallholdings; but over the years I believe that some of them have been eliminated and some are still being eliminated. We are encouraging local authorities to decide on the merits of the smallholdings, as to whether that is the right permanent rôle for that land, and, where it is, to concentrate on improving and bringing the smallholding to a proper

level of equipment and so forth. That is what we are concentrating on at present. I believe that a slow but steady improvement is going on in that direction.
I think we have had a very good and useful debate with a great many practical points brought out. I sense that in general the House approves of this Supplementary Estimate and believes that the money is being used for sound purposes and that British agriculture will get excellent value from it.

Question put and agreed to.

Fourth Resoluton read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL GALLERY

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: When this series of Supplementary Estimates is strewn with examples of the Government's inadequacy and lack of foresight, I hope the House will think that it is to our credit that we have resisted the temptation to fish in troubled waters and have preferred to direct attention to the non-partisan but very important subject of the National Gallery.
We are drawing attention to this Supplementary Estimate for an additional £30,100 in respect of the National Gallery's purchase of E1 Greco's sketch, "Dream of Philip II". That was bought for £42,500, but as the annual grant for the purchase of pictures by the National Gallery is only £10,500, plus approximately the same amount in income from investments, a Supplementary Estimate is necessary. I wish to argue tonight that this is a thoroughly bad procedure, and I say that it is bad for two reasons.
The first reason, to which I will return a little later, is that it makes planning by the National Gallery impossible. The second is that it means that at the moment pictures are being lost. Under the recommendations of the Waverley Committee, the export of pictures is allowed only if no public institution is prepared to buy them at a fair price, and the difficulty which we are in now is that the annual purchase grant of the National Gallery and similar institutions is so inadequate that they are unable to discharge this function effectively.
In the year ending 30th June, 1955, a considerable drain on our national resources of works of art was revealed. The Reviewing Committee reported that in that year no fewer than 196 pictures were exported, of a total value of over £1 million and at an average cost of £5,400 for each picture.
The House will agree with me that without the work of the Reviewing Committee, set up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer under the chairmanship of Mr. John Fremantle, and without the enthusiasm of our national institutions, the drain would be more severe. I must relate that observation to the present position of the National Gallery, and the difficulty there is that the National Gallery, as our premier national institution, can do little to preserve works of art of an average value of £5,400 when its own annual grant is only £10,500—rather less than twice the value of one of these works of art which left the country last year.
In considering this Supplementary Estimate, I might perhaps remind the House of the size of the National Gallery's annual purchase grant over the last few years and relate it to the present situation. In 1938–39 it was £7,000; in 1939–40 it was £5,600; and it was stopped during the war. In 1945–46 it was £1,500; in 1946–47 it climbed to £5,000; in 1947–53 it went up to £7,000; and it rose a further £1,750 in 1953–54. The annual purchase grant for 1954–55 was £10,500.
The most interesting feature of the annual purchase grant is apparent when we compare it with the annual purchase grant of fifty or nearly a hundred years ago. In 1900–01 it was £5,700 a year, and there were very few years between 1865 and 1889 in which it was not £10,000, approximately the amount which the Gallery enjoys at present. Today, therefore, the National Gallery is receiving apporximately the same figure for an annual purchase grant as it received in the days when the purchasing power of money was five or ten times what it is today—and most of the pictures in which the National Gallery is interested would cost several times the annual grant which it receives.
Its difficulties are increased by the fact that the price of pictures is tending to increase year by year. The Trustees have pointed out that the price of the pictures

in which they are interested is rising for three reasons. The first is that clearly the total number of pictures available on the market throughout the world is becoming fewer, and those which we have in this country are tending to be forced on to the market by high taxation. Secondly, there are more overseas galleries competing for the works of art which are available. There is a collection in Washington which has been built up in the last fifteen years, and the Santo Paulo collection in Brazil has been built up since 1947. There is tremendous pressure from other parts of the world which is forcing up the price of the pictures which the National Gallery would like to obtain. The third inflationary tendency is the fact that many people regard pictures as a good investment.
The National Gallery therefore is being faced with constantly rising prices of the pictures. The Trustees estimate that in private collections in this country there are ten pictures worth £250,000 each, all of them clearly beyond the range of the National Gallery unless it can come to the House in this way and ask us for a Supplementary Estimate, as has been done on this occasion. When the National Gallery of Scotland a year or so ago bought Velazquez's "An Old Woman Cooking Eggs," the cost was £57,000. When the National Gallery itself in 1953 bought Cézanne's "La Vieille Au Chapelet" the cost was £33,000.
If hon. Members look at the figures reached at the sale at Christie's last Friday they will get some idea of the alarming way in which the prices of pictures are rocketing today. Hobbema's "A Hamlet in the Woods," which sold for 1,050 guineas in 1876, fetched a price of 16,000 guineas last Friday. I could quote other paintings which were sold at Christie's last Friday, pictures by Guardi, Jan Steen van Miens and a number of other artists; the general effect was that the prices seemed to be about ten or twenty times what they were in the days when the National Gallery was receiving the same amount of annual purchase grant as it receives at present.
I know the Financial Secretary will say that it is always possible for the Trustees to come to the House as they have done on this occasion and to ask for a special grant, especially if it is recommended by the Reviewing Committee, but the


Reviewing Committee and the Trustees of the National Gallery have pointed out the dangers of this way of dealing with the situation. They argue that under this system every picture they want to get hold of, which is outside the £10,500 which they have every year, must be treated as an emergency, and they tend to hesitate to ask for a grant in case later in the year a more important picture becomes available which they would have regarded it as more essential for the Gallery to obtain. They say that they must consider whether an application
would, so to speak, exhaust their credit for the next occasion if some work of art, still more urgently needed, were suddenly to come upon the market. In circumstances of this sort, planning is necessarily reduced to an exercise in thought-reading—an attempt to forecast the states of mind of Ministers and Parliament in the event of a large number of alternative contingencies.
We have seen an example of that in the fact that between 1945 and 1950 only two purchases were made by the Trustees of the National Gallery, both of them in 1947. One was Poussin's "Landscape with a Snake" and the other Reynolds' portrait of Sir Watkins Williams Wynn. Both were bought, not because they filled existing gaps in the collection, but because otherwise they would have left the country. At the moment the National Gallery is forced into the position of buying pictures to stop them being exported and not necessarily because they are needed to fill any gaps or deficiencies in the existing collection.
One of the further difficulties about the Trustees' impoverished state is that they have no funds left for purchasing overseas in the way that American and Canadian galleries are purchasing at present. I think the main disadvantage of this system by which the purchase grants is inadequate and recourse must be had to a special grant is that it makes planning absolutely impossible. The Waverley Committee was emphatic on this point. I should like to read its comments. It said:
There is an urgent need—which we cannot too strongly stress—for increased regular financial assistance to the national collections, so that they can be more active in the pursuit of what they need, can carry on their programme of acquisitions in accordance with a long-term plan, and can accumulate reserves with which to meet exceptional demands as they arise.

I am submitting tonight that because of the failure of the Government to implement that recommendation this debate is necessary to draw attention to the need for enabling the National Gallery to plan ahead and not to live a hand-to-mouth and day-to-day existence as at present. We certainly shall continue to press the Government on this matter.
The National Gallery, as we would all admit, is a splendid collection, but there are deficiencies in it. I shall not list them tonight, but there are certain marked deficiencies to which the Trustees have directed our attention. Although it seems improbable that some of those deficiencies will be made good in the future, others can be fairly easily remedied, but not at prices which are within the range of the Trustees of the National Gallery. In consequence, the Trustees say that a purchasing grant of £80,000 would not enable them to buy the more highly-priced masterpieces, but would give them room for manoeuvre and enable them to plan ahead more than they can at the moment. They add—with, I think, admirable good humour under the circumstances—that the amount for which they are asking would be equivalent to one seven-hundred-and-fiftieth of the pig subsidy.
The Reviewing Committee has more ambitious ideas than the Trustees of the National Gallery. It suggests that the annual purchasing grant should be increased to a level equivalent in money value to the sums available in 1900. Lord Radcliffe, who is a most balanced and well-informed connoisseur of pictures, has argued that the National Gallery should receive an annual grant of £150,000 for ten years, with power to carry the balance forward from year to year. In an excellent broadcast on the Third Programme, he argued that this is a most urgent problem which must be solved in the course of the next generation or two, if it is to be solved at all. Another authority, Professor Ellis Waterhouse Barber, Professor of Fine Arts at the University of Birmingham, maintains that at least £100,000 is necessary and that, in addition, there should be special grants for emergencies.
I hope that in discussing this Supplementary Estimate for this additional amount I have convinced the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that an increase


in the annual purchasing grant is a basic requirement if we are not to lose our race against time and not to prejudice the retention of our national heritage. We shall lose no opportunity of drawing attention to the urgency of the situation, but in the meantime, we welcome the Supplementary Estimate that has been placed before the House.

7.45 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: I should like most warmly to support the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood). The least we can do is to have a debate today on this Supplementary Estimate, because the country has been provided in the annual report recently issued by the National Gallery Trustees with a most admirable document. It is an extremely interesting one, excellently written—which is such a happy change in annual reports—and one which I believe every hon. Member who cares to call himself civilised should read, mark and learn.
We in Parliament are responsible by the actions we take here and by the Votes we grant for the standard and standing of this great institution, the National Gallery. It is a public institution in the full sense of the term. I do not think anyone who has read the report or considered what is involved in this Supplementary Estimate can be satisfied with the present state of affairs.
My hon. Friend has most lucidly set out the difficulties in which the Trustees of the Gallery find themselves. He has pointed out how needful it is that we should take action now in order to obtain these great masterpieces, without which the full quality of the collection cannot be secured. It is not by any means the largest picture gallery in the world, but the value of the National Gallery is that it is a collection which, both for quality of individual pictures and for their representative character, is I think second to none. It is essential, therefore, that we should make certain that the quality is maintained.
As Lord Radcliffe said in that extremely interesting broadcast, the situation in which we found ourselves with the El Greco sketch is one which might well recur in relation to other notable works of art. He made an estimate that there are known to

be in private collections in this country at least ten pictures, the price of which would not be much below £250,000 each at current rates so far as one can estimate. After all, the great pictures of the world are seldom to be found in junk shops; they are well-known and well-catalogued. What is not known are the precise moments when they might come on to the market, or the circumstances in which they might come on to the market. Lord Radcliffe suggested that there were about another 100 pictures which would also be Very highly valued, any one of which the Trustees might feel they should endeavour to purchase.
What is the position when one of these peculiarly fine works of art is on the market? The one we are discussing, the El Greco, is a sketch—admittedly it is not a completed picture—but the Trustees particularly wished to acquire it because the collection is relatively weak in pictures of that school. When the Trustees know that they wish to acquire a particular picture, can we be satisfied that this present arrangement, this emergency purchasing, is—to put it at its very lowest—in the best financial interests of the country?
It has been most forcibly pointed out in The Times, for example, in that newspaper's very interesting leading article on 18th November—with which I am sure we are all familiar—that if this emergency procedure is adopted in each case because the Trustees simply have not the funds to plan for the future and to accumulate adequate balances, a picture has to be bought at the dramatic and exciting moment when its price may have reached a peak. It may be very much higher than it might have been had the Trustees been in a position to negotiate privately before it became known that the picture was about to go on to the market.
That is one of the serious difficulties about the present position. As The Times points out, such pictures could often be obtained for the nation at substantially reduced prices if the Trustees were in a position of some certainty and could go to the owner privately, when it has been indicated—they have the usual channels in the art dealing world as in other places, I believe—that the owner contemplates a sale. If the Trustees knew that they had the money and could close a deal at an


early stage, it is most probable that in quite a number of cases at any rate the owner would have possibly some regard for the honour of having the picture going to a national institution.
He would not be under pressure from other interests—overseas interests, very often—and might prefer to make a reasonable and honourable deal with the National Gallery Trustees, whereas, if the deal were postponed the price might be much higher. In fact, Lord Radcliffe says quite clearly that the present ad hoc method
… tends to make the public pay the highest possible price at the latest possible moment.
It is largely because the annual grant to the National Gallery is so ludicrously small in relation to the present day values of pictures that the Trustees really can make no intelligent plan whatsoever.
I am not pretending for one moment that one would expect the Treasury to make an annual grant of such dimensions that we should never be faced with a situation in which some special provision had to be made for a particularly valuable work of art. One does not want to exaggerate this. I can perfectly well understand that for some painting of the very greatest possible value one would still have to come to Parliament, but I say that those occasions would be few and far between.
The National Gallery is a gallery which is already well stocked with pictures of most schools—though, as I have said, there are certain gaps—so it is not a question of buying pictures every day of the week. It is only the exceptional ones that we would require to purchase, and ii the Trustees could feel that for anything but the most exceptional pictures they could make reasonable plans, I feel that we could do a great deal to improve the quality of our national collection and also to save some of the money from the public purse.
I do not wish to go beyond this particular Supplementary Vote, but there is much to be said for the Treasury adopting towards the National Gallery—and towards other comparable national institutions—the policy which they adopt towards the universities. There should be quinquennial grants. Even supposing that the annual grant were considerably increased—which would certainly be an

improvement—that method is, in itself, unsatisfactory. The work of an institution of this kind cannot really be planned within the compass of twelve months. I am quite convinced that the National Gallery, as well as other national collections and museums, would be far better served if there were an equivalent of the University Grants Committee.
A National Institutions Grants Committee has already been recommended in the Report published in 1954 by the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries. I think that in this House the Financial Secretary said not very long ago that this was not altogether an acceptable idea. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If I am mistaken in drawing that inference I am glad, because if he is in favour of that recommendation I should feel very much happier in acquiescing in this Supplementary Estimate tonight, as it would then be a good augury for the future that we would have the kind of organisation which would put the question of funds for purchasing on a very much better basis.
I do not want to take any more time because I know that others of my hon. Friends wish to speak, but I feel most strongly that we should take note of what the Trustees themselves have said so eloquently. Anyone reading the Report must be convinced that we have in charge of the National Gallery at present people of vision and energy, and people who deserve the support of the House and of the public. This present hand-to-mouth method is extremely unsatisfactory, and I very much hope that we shall have from the Financial Secretary some indication that the Government are giving serious attention to this problem.
We are well aware that at the present moment the Government are preaching economy. They are trying to take measures against inflation. We need not discuss this evening whether or not we regard those to be the right measures, but that is the situation in which they find themselves. I would submit that of the different types of public expenditure some are more inflationary than others. By and large I would say that expenditure on major works of art is rather less inflationary in its results than are many other types of expenditure. Therefore, the factors which influence every kind of


Government expenditure at the present moment—and which might lead the Financial Secretary to be a little less forthcoming than he might wish—should not unduly influence him in this question of the provision of funds for purchases for our great National Galleries and institutions.

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) for having drawn its attention to the needs of the National Gallery. I think that the nation is justly proud of the National Gallery. Although it may not he the most famous or the greatest collection in the world, I think that everyone would agree that it is the most balanced. I am often threatened with apoplexy or at least with an attack of blood pressure, when I consider the action of my predecessor in the representation for Cambridge, Oliver Cromwell, when he sold the Royal collection of Charles I. The Venetian Ambassador wrote to the Doge that, even with the abominable prices—"Grezzi Vilissimi," he described them—the collection had raised £118,000, the greatest sum of any collection since ancient times. In spite of that loss we have a particularly fine collection.
I am certain that we are right tonight to pay tribute to the work of the Gallery, both in the past and in the present, and particularly to its wonderful work of conservation during the war in Manod quarry. We should also pay tribute to the Trustees of the Gallery for allowing concerts to be given there and chosen masterpieces to be shown at a time when the sirens were still sounding and the bombs were still falling.
8.0 p.m.
Today the Gallery is undoubtedly in a very difficult position. First, it has difficulties about accommodation. We know that many of the pictures are hung on reserve screens and have to be placed in corridors where they are subject to changes of temperature and of moisture which, of course, entail the overriding danger of flaking. The hon. Member for Rossendale also drew attention to the limited resources of the National Gallery and to the fact that the sum of £10,500 is received today from the Government is the same, I believe, as in 1880. Because of the change in money values, that

amount in 1880 was perhaps equivalent to £40,000 today. The total amount available to the Gallery us about £20,000. £10,500 in Government grant, and £10,000 from benefactions.
The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the tremendous rise in the prices of famous masterpieces and to the fact that in this country there are no less than ten pictures valued at over £250,000 and about one hundred at about £150,000. Abroad prices are equally tremendous. The Trustees told us in their report that the famous Frick collection in New York purchased for no less than 750,000 dollars a Madonna by van Eyck and Octrus Christus, whilst a Cezanne still life, not of the first quality, obtained 230,000 dollars at the Cognacq sale in Paris
As the hon. Member pointed out, these prices are way beyond the scope of the National Gallery, they do not allow the Gallery authorities to plan ahead and to make a list of possible purchases which would prove a credit and an adornment to the Gallery. I know this is a time of stringency, but I believe that works of art pay dividends not only in the pleasure they give to those who go to see them, but in the attraction of foreign exchange from visitors who come from overseas to see them and who prove valuable sources of dollar and other currencies.
In conclusion, I would draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to one of the most important paragraphs in the Waverley Report which says:
All efforts to preserve our national heritage will be largely nugatory unless the meagre sums hitherto available to the maintenance and development of public collections are very substantially augmented.
I would claim that the observation applies not only to the London collections, but likewise to the provincial ones. I know my right hon. Friend is very sympathetic, and I hope that he will pay special attention to this important statement of the Walverley Committee.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: I should like to endorse everything that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood), by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) and by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Hamilton Kerr). I think there is complete unanimity in the House that the


present grants to the National Gallery, and, indeed, to all other national collections, are totally inadequate in the light of modern conditions. In a sense I welcome, as other hon. Members have welcomed, this Supplementary Estimate. I am delighted that the National Gallery was enabled at the very last moment to acquire that E1 Greco sketch, but it really is fantastic that the total annual purchase grant to the National Gallery represents, in last Friday's terms, the cost of one Guardi. Guardi happens to be one of my favourite painters, though I do not think anybody would consider that he was one of the greater masters of painting. Despite that, two. of his pictures last Friday fetched 20,000 guineas, and so the total annual grant of the National Gallery is represented by one small Guardi.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale gave two very powerful reasons for the Government reviewing the purchase grants and allocating to the National Gallery a regular annual grant of very much more substantial size than the present one. Personally, I thought the highest bid, so to speak, of Lord Radcliffe was fairly modest in terms of present values of paintings. As my hon. Friend rightly said, because of this emergency procedure, pictures have been lost to the national collections which should not have been lost. As he also said, it is quite impossible for the Trustees of the National Gallery to plan to fill the gaps in their collection.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East said, we spend money unnecessarily through this procedure by waiting until a picture is on the market and practically sold before the procedure can come into operation. This costs the taxpayer large sums of money which he should not be called upon to pay. Indeed, it usually happens, when the matter is dealt with by the Committee on Exports of Works of Art, that we wait until we are in direct competition with the United States before we begin to negotiate.
I will advance a third reason why I think this present procedure of making an exiguous annual grant and then presenting a Supplementary Estimate on special occasions is a deplorable one. The Government go to a lot of trouble to appoint a number of highly distin

guished men to become trustees of our national collections. I think we all agree that not only in the National Gallery, but in the Tate Gallery and in the other museums and collections these trustees do an admirable job. One would have thought that one of the main functions of a board of trustees was to decide what purchases to make, especially of major works of art. What happens today? As soon as they desire to make an acquisition of any importance at all the matter goes completely out of their hands.
They can make a recommendation and the Committee on Exports of Works of Art can make a recommendation, but, in the end, the person who decides whether that picture shall be acquired for the nation or not is nominally the Chancellor of the Exchequer though, in fact, a gentleman at the Treasury. I think that we have been very well served in the past by gentlemen at the Treasury with admirable artistic tastes, and that probably, generally speaking, they have made the right decisions, but it seems to me quite wrong that there should be one individual who is in fact an artistic dictator, who is able to say yea or nay to the acquisition of a work of art for our national collections. This ought to be the job of the trustees. It is in a sense derogatory to the trustees that this responsibility should be taken out of their hands.
I would endorse the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East of a five year grant. I know the Treasury hates anything but annual finance. It thinks that any finance but that is most inconvenient. However, the quinquennial grant of the University Grants Committee works perfectly well and satisfactorily, and there is no earthly reason why that system of grant should not be duplicated. I should like to see, as it were, a university grants committee for all the national collections, made up of representatives of the trustees of each of those institutions, and giving quinquennial grants allocated according to the needs from time to time of each institution. I think that that would work extremely well and would be far better than even an annual grant of the size Lord Radcliffe mentioned.
If the right hon. Gentleman turns down once again the suggestion of a quinquennial grant, I hope he will accede to the suggestion that, if an annual has to be


made, there should at any rate be a carry-over which would go some small distance towards enabling the trustees to do a little planning ahead.
We are here dealing in what are infinitesimal sums compared with the total revenue. These institutions have been starved of money not only by the present Government, but by successive Governments, and for far too long. The House has been unanimous about this matter, and I hope that the Treasury will not prove to be as adamant upon it as we are accustomed to finding it. The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer has a very great reputation as a connoisseur of painting and of art generally. I am sorry that during his tenure of office there was not a more substantial grant to these institutions. I hope that the Financial Secretary to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to do better.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: The only fault I can find in this admirable National Gallery Report for 1938–54, is that, unfortunately, it is not readily obtainable at the Vote Office. That, perhaps, is why not as many hon. Members have seen it as one would wish. It reveals the ludicrous weakness of our position in the matter of purchasing pictures. When one thinks of the work that the National Gallery has done, it is quite absurd that it is not in a position to build on what has been achieved already. I should like to add my tribute to the comfort which the Gallery gave to so many of us in wartime. Besides concerts and pictures, the Gallery had an excellent canteen. A person serving in one of the Service Ministries could obtain an admirable luncheon to satisfy his animal appetite just as the Gallery satisfied his aesthetic appetite.
I should like to make a slight correction to the statistic quoted of the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood). Thanks to the housewife's keener purchasing of British bacon and pork last year, the correct fraction is now not 1/750th part of the pig subsidy that the National Gallery would like to have as an annual grant but only 1/500th part, but it does not alter the principle. I should like to go further into the question of the pig subsidy—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): That seems fairly remote from this Vote.

Mr. Hill: Except that the grant is mentioned in the National Gallery Report and that farmers in seeking to improve their pig breeding have agreed to make some contribution towards Government-sponsored research stations, and I was hoping that the picture lovers might also make some contribution to the picture purchase fund; and that the Government might add to it.
I would make two suggestions. Is it inconceivable that we should have some charge for admission occasionally to our national galleries? Could we not stimulate the number of visitors by enabling a gallery to be open at what would be for many people more convenient hours? At present, the National Gallery is open from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays and 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. on Sundays. It stands to reason that many people who might like to go there cannot easily do so because of their working hours.
In Florence the galleries stay open for two evenings a week, from about 9 p.m. till 11 p.m., so that the visitor can go to them after dinner and see the pictures under very favourable conditions, because normally only picture lovers as distinct from sightseers go there during those hours. About 3s. is paid for admission and presumably therefore, some revenue is obtained, but the galleries are free at the weekend so that those who cannot afford admission can still see the pictures.
In 1954 868,000 people visited the National Gallery. Even at an average of 6d. a head we should raise about £21,000 revenue and at 1s. a head about £43,000. It could be specifically levied as a picture purchasing fund. If the Government could have built on that and doubled it, there might have been no need for this Estimate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The debate is ranging very wide. I have no desire to stop it, but this has nothing to do with the Vote, which is concerned with buying pictures.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Hill: I submit, with great respect, that if my suggestion had been adopted, the Supplementary Estimate would not have been necessary, because ample provision could have been made from other sources. However, I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and all I ask is that,


by whatever means they adopt, the Government should take a very small step forward so as to ensure that we are not regarded by posterity as having acted like a fifth-rate Power in maintaining the strength of our national collections in the world of art.

Dr. Barnett Stross: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury will have noted that there is a common feeling in the House that better support should be made available to this great institution, the National Gallery, than is made available at present. I hope that he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider the very valuable suggestions made from both sides of the House, though I want to take up in a moment the question of charges, to which I am completely opposed. If, however, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you feel that to discuss charges would be out of order, I shall be content to leave the subject and merely say that I am sure that since we have never imposed charges in the past we shall never do so in the future.
Another point which may be linked closely with the Supplementary Estimate has been made by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill): It is the question of the opening times of the Gallery. If we are to spend a large sum of money to obtain a picture, we are right to consider who is going to see it, when they can see it and in what numbers they are likely to go and see it. The hon. Member spoke about the Gallery closing at 6 p.m. I have brought this matter up in the House in the past and no doubt it will be considered on both sidese of the House again and again in the future.
The great mass of people find it difficult, except on Sundays, to go to the galleries because they are working until about 6 p.m. Might it not be possible that if the Supplementary Estimate were increased, better means might be found within it to enable the National Gallery to stay open until 9 p.m. at least once a week? I am sure that that would be helpful to the nation as a whole. After a year we should be in a position to know whether the expenditure had been justified or not. If it had not, the Gallery could revert to the former situation.
I find myself, as, indeed, must the Financial Secretary, in entire agreement with the basis of all that has been said

this evening. This great institution which has one of the greatest collections in the world is, to put it crudely, no longer able to keep up appearances. I am not one who says that we must buy any picture that becomes available on the market because it is a great picture might might otherwise leave the country. Pictures may well travel, but in building a great national collection we have to make it superlative in each item.
"The Dream of Philip II," by El Greco, is not necessarily the greatest El Greco. We have missed the boat. I understand that there is only this picture and one other El Greco in the nation's possession, just as we have only two paintings in the national possession by Cezanne. Obviously, therefore, we have been missing opportunities, but there are other painters who are well represented in our national collections and if Canada wishes to buy examples of their art it is not right that we should resist their export. It is right that great paintings should be seen everywhere. People cannot travel from one end of the world to the other to see examples.
The new world has been very wise. Our American cousins, having not only good taste but a fair amount of money, have been in the market extensively for a long time. However, their purchases are now falling off so prices may ease a little as a result of pressure diminishing. But, as I said earlier, Canada has come in and Australia is building up her collections. We must welcome this development, with the one proviso that we are able to fill in the gaps here, where there are gaps in a collection such as that of the National Gallery.
I am advised that in the case of gaps in, say, the early Italian paintings, which we should have bought, we shall never be able to get them now so we shall never see any of these pictures in the National Gallery. I am also advised that unless there is a different type of grant in aid there will be no opportunity of planning ahead for the future. As has been said, we cannot get bargains if we wait until the last moment and the whole world knows that we must have a certain painting.
I am sure that the Financial Secretary agrees with virtually everything he has heard tonight. He must translate his agreement with us into action. It is not


reasonable to say, when taxation is so high that none of us can afford nowadays to help as we used to do by personal patronage, that the Government will not help. The Government must help. In olden days people had enough money to assist by voluntary contributions and, therefore, large sums of money were made available to the National Gallery.
Taking the last seventeen years, and leaving out the Colnaghi grant of £80,000, there is only £32,000 to show over the last thirty-two years. Before that, things were better. Men were richer and taxation was lower. If the right hon. Gentleman will reduce Income Tax to 6d. in the £ we will go out into the highways and byways and find money for him, but he is not able to do that; nobody could. We must face the position as it is.
This painting, and others like it, will soon hang in air-conditioned galleries. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us when all the galleries will be air-conditioned? Perhaps, too, he will explain when it will be possible to extend the gallery, for there is less space for our paintings and treasures there today than there was in 1938.
Lastly, may I say to the right hon. Gentleman that Sir Stafford Cripps, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the last day he was in the House, said, in a Committee room upstairs—I remember his words—that the right thing to do was to apportion a percentage of the national income for the arts as a global sum, and that as the national income rises so should this sum rise, too. He expressed this view more than once.
Oviously, a great heritage of this type needs to be most carefully conserved. It is not an extravagance in any sense of the term, and, if we are not careful, those who come after us will accuse us of barbarism.

Mrs. White: Before my hon. Friend sits down, will he say whether, in his calculations of the numbers of El Grecos and Cezannes in the national possession, he was taking into account the Gregynog bequest to the National Museum of Wales?

Dr. Stross: Yes. There is one El Greco there and there is this one. The others are "phoney."

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): To have some Ministerial responsibility for the great museums and galleries of this country is one of the few things that keep the Financial Secretary to the Treasury human. In replying to this interesting debate, I hope I shall be able to show, that, though I lay no claim to be a connoisseur of art—indeed, it might be dangerous if the Financial Secretary to the Treasury were that—I am not without human qualities. It is one of the fortunate parts of my duties that I can go into the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square either on an official visit to gather information and enlightenment about my job, or purely for pleasure on my return from lunch; and I have done both.
I should like, at the outset, to express on behalf of the Government appreciation to the Trustees of the National Gallery, to the Director and to all the staff. This admirable report has brought home to a great many people who do not often think about these things how well deserved is that appreciation. I, too, hope that the report will be widely studied and that it will lead to what perhaps matters most of all, steadily increased numbers of members of the public visiting the galleries. I am sure I can speak for the whole House in extending thanks to Mr. John Fremantle, and the other members of the Reviewing Committee. Mr. Fremantle is a constituent and a neighbour of mine in Hampstead, so he has an additional channel through which he can, when necessary, bring home his views to his Member of Parliament.
I would like to answer one or two of the points raised in the debate, if I can do so without transgressing too far. Although a little wide of the main subject, I would tell my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) that before the war charges for admission were made by the National Gallery on two days a week, but they were abandoned after the war by common consent. Indeed, the cost of collecting the admission fee almost reached the total amount taken. Therefore, I do not think that in this way we would gain much towards the tens of thousands of pounds, or the hundreds of thousands of pounds which we may need for purchasing important works of art.
Evening opening is costly in terms of staff. The National Gallery staff was cut to 78 in 1952. We are providing in the Estimates for next year for a staff of 87. Anybody who has had any responsibility for a building or institution of this kind is well aware that if in addition to keeping the National Gallery open for seven days a week throughout the year, we were also to open it in the evenings, our staff costs would mount considerably.
Before we come to any decision in our minds about any of the main questions that have been raised, we must seek to determine what is the object of a national collection like the National Gallery. I suggest that it is not to have a complete collection, because no collection of pictures can ever be complete, but to have a representative and balanced collection. My opinion is that, whereas the collection of pictures in Trafalgar Square is a most wonderful one, it is not evenly balanced. There are gaps in it, and the House of Commons should certainly not turn a blind eye to problems arising from that.
8.30 p.m.
I think that the need is rather to fill gaps than necessarily to feel an obligation to seek to buy every important picture coming on the market. It would be a pity if we were to encourage those people who are inclined to shed tears whenever any picture is sold. Indeed, I share the view which is expressed in a leading article in The Times today that one should not be sorry when important pictures travel about the world. One would like to see representative collections of pictures in the capital or other cities of all the main countries of the world. We should not be selfish about this and should not simply say that because we have a great number of pictures by a certain artist we should strive never to allow any of them to go abroad.
The speech of the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) contained a suggestion that important pictures were being exported and that, somehow, the Reviewing Committee, within the limits of finance, was not being effective in preventing that. I would seek to rebut any idea of that sort. Paragraph 4 of the Report of the Reviewing Committee says:
We are glad to be able to state that there does not appear to be any ground for thinking

that important pictures of substantial value that should be retained in this country on grounds of national importance are being exported without reference to the Committee.
In fact, the Report for the past year states that the Committee had before it only two pictures, the El Greco and the Clouet, and the Trustees of the National Gallery considered both of them and finally decided to ask the Treasury for a grant for the E1 Greco but did not seek one for the Clouet.

Dr. Stross: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that in obtaining a well balanced collection it is not so much a matter of preventing pictures going abroad as of having funds with which to buy them abroad in order from time to time to fill the gaps?

Mr. Brooke: I was seeking to point out that we should all clear our minds about the object. I am not suggesting that there is any confusion of mind in the House, but when I read about these things and listen to people talking about them I am conscious of a sort of nostalgic feeling that one should never let anything go because we once had it, whereas I think the hon. Member accepts my view that our purpose in relation to the National Gallery should be to seek over the years to fill the gaps and thereby have a better balance than perhaps we have at present.
A suggestion to which publicity has been given, though I have not heard it mentioned this evening, is that the National Gallery might seek to put itself in funds by selling pictures which the Trustees now judge to be second-rate or third-rate. The National Gallery for many years had power to sell pictures, the power being contained in the National Gallery Act, 1858, and it was only taken away by the House, with common consent, by the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act, 1954. I was responsible for taking that Bill through the House, and I do not remember a single hon. Member on either side urging that it was desirable that the Gallery authorities should have the power to sell pictures.
The reason in the minds of hon. Members, I am quite sure, was that taste does change, and if one tries to look backwards in this matter, one can imagine that pictures which we value highly now might have had a low estimation put on them in past years and might have gone.


At any rate, the statutory position here has been laid down within the last 18 months, and I think we must accept it.
The next point I would put to the House is that this problem, on which so many hon. Members have concentrated, is not capable of any easy solution by simply altering the amount of the annual grant. At whatever figure one puts the annual grant, even the £150,000 that was suggested by Lord Radcliffe, one might still have a position in which, within one year a succession of very important pictures commanding high values came into the market, and there would still have to be some additional machinery by which a decision could be taken on whether a special grant should be made to secure any or all of them. Indeed, the very existence of the Reviewing Committee—and I think it is common ground that the Reviewing Committee is a valuable part of our machinery here—opens up the possibilities of unforeseeable applications for large sums at any time. Therefore, one could not be sure, no matter at what figure one puts the annual grant, that one would have provided for all contingencies.
I wonder whether the quinquennial system advocated by the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) would really meet the case. She and others drew the parallel with the universities, but, in so far as it is a parallel, I doubt whether it proved the hon. Lady's case. The university system, with which I am very familiar, provides a quinquennial assessment of current expenditure, but there is also an annual grant for non-recurrent expenditure, and the point I have been making is that these pictures come by way of non-recurrent expenditure. The pictures themselves are unique, and certainly might not become available for purchase regularly over the years. Therefore, in each year, whatever we do, we should have to take fresh decisions on whether the money can be found.
The questions that have been raised tonight are questions of method as well as money. At the same time, money is at the root of the problem, and persuasive as have been the speeches to which I have listened, I must say that there are many admirable objects throughout the whole field of Government expenditure on which I should greatly like to be able to spend money more freely, if that money

were available and if we did not have to call upon the taxpayer to provide it. It is the taxpayers' money that we are handling, and we have to consider how far we can rightly claim to put our hands in the pockets of the taxpayers for the purchase of pictures.

Mr. K. Robinson: Can the right hon. Gentleman point to any other aspect of Government expenditure where the real value of the Government grant has been reduced so considerably as in this field?

Mr. Brooke: At this stage, I was speaking of the method; I have not come to discuss the actual level of the Government grant. I was simply saying that we must not be carried away by eloquence or enthusiasm or a love for pictures, which I hope I am showing that I share. We also have to take into account what money is available, and what other claims throughout the whole field of Government expenditure may be made upon it.
The Reviewing Committee was set up only three years or so ago, and since then eight grants for various services have been made. Two of these have gone to the National Gallery—the £10,000 for Gains-borough's "The Morning Walk", and £30,100 in this Supplementary Estimate for the El Greco. It is only a few months ago that the House approved a Supplementary Vote of £25,000 for the "Old Woman Cooking Eggs", which has gone to the National Gallery of Scotland. Indeed, in view of the financial and economic difficulties of 1955, we can be proud that my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the House as a whole, approved these two extremely large grants for buying individual pictures.
The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) suggested that decisions whether or not to buy a picture were taken by a man at the Treasury. I can assure the House that it is not done like that. In each case since I have been at the Treasury, these decisions have been personally made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the recommendation of the Financial Secretary. So far as I am aware, that has always been done with all these grants. It would be a great mistake for anyone to imagine that Treasury Ministers were simply rubber stamping the recommendation of some official. Indeed, anybody who knows the last Chancellor of


the Exchequer and his own personal collection of art will be well aware that he would not allow some recommendation of this kind to go through without taking a very keen personal interest.
The problem to which we have to address ourselves is this upsurge of prices, because the enhancement of prices at auctions or at private sales in recent years has been astonishing. I agree at once that the kind of figure which was provided for the purchase grant of the National Gallery last year, apart from this Supplementary Estimate, the sum of £10,500, would be unlikely to suffice to buy any single picture that the National Gallery might want.
At the same time, I am certain that the House will agree that we must be on guard lest we take any action that will further inflate the market. If Parliament were to go on record that it had set aside enormous sums wholly for the purchase of pictures in the market in order to fill in the national collection as rapidly as possible, we might not be coming much nearer to getting the pictures. We might simply be sending up the prices more and more steeply.
That is another reason why there is no easy solution. However, I do not want to stand here tonight and claim that the present arrangements are ideal. From my point of view, that of the Financial Secretary, they are obviously not ideal, because the Financial Secretary can have no natural love for a system that compels him every now and then to come to the House with a Supplementary Estimate. Yet it is the essence of the present system that we have moderate annual grants supplemented by substantial Supplementary Estimates when an important picture has to be bought.
8.45 p.m.
The House will not expect me to make any declaration of policy this evening. I have listened to a number of very interesting suggestions from both sides of the House which I want to consider and to discuss with my right hon. Friend. I am not especially attracted or influenced by the argument that we should look at the level of purchase grants in the year 1900, or in other years, and then do a calculation on the amount by which picture prices have gone up, and, through a formula of that kind, arrive at a new

figure for the current year. In fact what we want to do is to examine the need. We have to weigh the real needs of these years that lie ahead against all the other claims, which are not light, on our finances.
I am not sure how many hon. Members have yet had an opportunity to study the new Estimate for 1956–57 which has just been published. I apologise for going beyond the Supplementary Estimate by mentioning this, but I do not think I can reply to the debate, in which hon. Members have been looking to the future rather than to the past, without doing so. If hon. Members will look at that Estimate, they will find that the normal purchase grants for the museums and galleries which I shall be asking Parliament to approve for the coming year amount to about £131,000, as compared with about £118,000 in the current year just coming to its close.
The National Gallery grant has in this current year been £10,500. I cannot meet the demands for a startling increase in that, but as a token of good will, it is going up by 20 per cent. and the figure inserted for the coming year is not £10,500 but £12,500. In addition, special grants will be recommended in the 1956–57 Estimates of £25,000 for the museums and galleries as a whole, and that will bring up the total of the ordinary Estimates for 1956–57 to approximately £156,000.
In general, the authorities of the museums and galleries, I mean the national institutions, have most helpfully confined their requests this year to the existing level of provision, and in present circumstances my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I am very grateful indeed to them for having done so, and for having recognised that this is not the moment when one can make sweeping changes. But having regard to the recommendations of the Reviewing Committee and also of the National Gallery Trustees, as contained in this valuable report, I am proposing to undertake a thorough review of the position in the museums and galleries concerned against the time when the ecenomic situation improves. I am grateful to the hon. Member who initiated this debate, because that was a statement which I wished to make to the House in conjunction with the publication of the new Estimate, and this debate has given me the opportunity.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House will, I think, agree that this is not an easy question. It cannot be settled in a moment and we need to give it our best thought. For my part, I promise to do that, and I hope that hon. Members, for their part, will not fail themselves to visit, and encourage others to visit, both the National Gallery and the other institutions for which we are here finding the money.
An hon. Member asked about air-conditioned rooms. The three rooms mentioned in the report as being in process of reconstruction and air-conditioning will be open this summer. I cannot give the date, but I hope that it will be as soon as possible. That will mean that all the rooms are back in use except one that was destroyed in the war and one being used by the conservation department.
I hope that hon. Members will go to see the Spanish pictures, which are being rehung, the El Greco among them. I hope nobody will feel that it was a misuse of the taxpayers' money to spend £30,000 of it to acquire what I believe 100 years hence will be looked upon with greater interest than the HANSARD record of our proceedings tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Fifth Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH ARMY

Mr. George Wigg: Two or three points on this Resolution could, with profit, be brought to the attention of the House. The first arises from the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for War was cut short in his stride when replying on an Adjournment debate to my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew). It concerned the pay of a Captain Allison and I thought we were getting a very sympathetic reply from the Under-Secretary of State. At seven o'clock the Chairman of Ways and Means came down with his special brand of Guillotine, so we did not have the advantage of hearing the concluding sentences of the Minister.
It may be that since 13th March, when my hon. Friend raised this matter, the hon. Gentleman has been able to take the

matter to its final conclusion and to grant to Captain Allison the redress which I understand the situation demands. Whether that be so or not, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt welcome this opportunity of giving the House the advantage of hearing the concluding part of his speech. I do not think there is anything that I need say on the merits of the case. My hon. Friend made a very powerful case for the Regulations being pushed to the very limit. I thought that the Under-Secretary of State was moving in our direction, but if he cannot give us a favourable decision we shall at least have the advantage of knowing how the matter stands.
My second point arises from further consideration of the White Paper on Service Pay and Pensions. We have so far done fairly well. We, on this side of the House, noted the point about the Territorial Army; the Secretary of State was kind enough to clear that up on the Army Estimates debate. We noted the decision on short service officers; the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to clear that up. The third point arises from the position of officers who started their Army career in the ranks. They will have served on Regular Army engagements and now, having been commissioned and discharged from their Regular engagements, they will be serving as officers and qualifying for retired pay as officers.
The question is, What happens about their other-rank service? I presume that this matter affects the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, and that if we get the point cleared up for the Army the announcement will cover the other two Services. If that is not so, and if the point arises only in connection with the Army, perhaps the Under-Secretary will be good enough to say so. I do not know very much about the Royal Navy, but I should think that without any shadow of doubt the matter must arise in the Royal Air Force. There must be a considerable number of Royal Air Force officers who, at some time, served on Regular commissions. Their position now under Appendix 5 of the White Paper must be a little uncertain. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will deal with that point.
The third point with which I wish to deal in the short time available is a matter which was raised by my hon.


Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter). He has put on the Order Paper a number of Questions about the position of boy bandsmen serving in theatres such as Cyprus where the general situation at the moment is twilight between war and peace, and where these youngsters could be exposed to a certain amount of physical danger. My hon. Friend has taken the view that it is quite wrong in these circumstances to send out boys to join their regiments in Cyprus and that those who are out there ought to be brought home. My hon. Friend also feels that the Under-Secretary of State should give an assurance that in no circumstances in future should boys be sent out to that area.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): That matter does not appear to me, on the face of it, to arise on this Vote. This Vote deals with pay, and pay alone.

Mr. Wigg: With respect, from two points of view I submit that this must be in order. In the first instance, the pay of these boys is borne on Vote 1. That is the first consideration that I put to you. Secondly, the White Paper on Service Pay and Allowances is concerned with increasing the number of men serving in the Regular Army. Obviously it must also concern boys. Therefore, as the situation in which they will be employed must affect the number who will enlist, I respectfully submit that it must be in order to deal with the question of boys, bearing in mind, as I have already said, that their pay is borne on Vote 1.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, I think that is going rather too wide on this Vote.

Mr. Wigg: With respect, this is the Report stage. We are reporting those matters which were dealt with in Committee. This matter would have been brought up at that time had my hon. Friend not had another engagement. I must respectfully submit to you that this matter is borne on no other Vote, but if we cannot discuss it on Vote 1 perhaps you would indicate at what stage we can discuss it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I suppose that when we come to Vote A we might be able to discuss it, but this is Vote 1, dealing with pay.

Mr. Wigg: I wanted to deal with the question that arises from the fact that these boys are enlisted in the Regular Army with a view to becoming Regular soldiers. Therefore, the numbers who do or do not enlist must affect the total sum, and for that reason I would submit that this is in order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That would be in order, I think, upon Vote A, but not upon this one.

Mr. Wigg: In that case, I can only submit to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and although the time is late, perhaps we shall be able to reach Vote A. I must, however, express my regret that we have not an opportunity to discuss this important subject which certainly concerns my hon. Friend a great deal and which, but for an accident, he would have raised on the Committee stage. However, you have given your Ruling and I must accept it.
The fourth point to which the hon. Gentleman referred is a matter which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) about National Service grants. He said that these are fixed, that they were fixed a very long time ago and that the cost of living has gone up a great deal since that time. He holds the view, a view which I am sure is held by my hon. Friends on this side of the House, that the Government ought to consider the ceiling—the largest amount which the family of a National Service man can draw—and give sympathetic consideration to the raising of that ceiling. Needless to say, it is perhaps asking a little too much that we should be told tonight what the new ceiling is going to be, but we should like to hear from the hon. Gentleman that this point is being borne in mind.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. James Simmons: I want to emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said about the National Service grant. I raised this matter in Committee on the Estimates, but the Parliamentary Secretary had an avalanche of questions and I acquit him of any discourtesy in not having been able in the time to answer the point which I raised.
I know that the grant is administered by the Ministry of Pensions and National


Insurance, but I understand that it is fixed by the Army authorities, or, at least, that there is some consultation between the two Departments on what amount the grant should be. Although the rates of pay of National Service men have been slightly increased in the latest White Paper on Service Pay and Allowances, I do not feel that these young men are fully safeguarded by an overall limit of £3 a week for National Service grants. As I said on the previous occasion, people marry at a much younger age today than used to be the case. Many young National Service men are married and have family responsibilities. Indeed, a great number of them elect to carry out their apprenticeship engagements before National Service and they may be 22 or 23 before they are absorbed into the Forces as National Service men. They may have started to buy a house and may have furnished it on hire-purchase.
I feel that the overall limit of £3 a week is not adequate in many cases to meet the interest charges on the house and the hire-purchase charges on the furniture. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consult the necessary authorities to see whether the limit on the National Service grant can be raised. It would not mean that every National Service man would get more than £3, because many of them get no grant at all at present, but we ought to safeguard these young people against hardship, especially when they are married and when the early part of their married life is interrupted through the young man having to go for National Service. They ought to be safeguarded against any undue financial hardship. Would the Under-Secretary please look at the matter again and see whether something can be done?

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Fitzroy Maclean): Perhaps I might deal in order with the points raised during the debate. First, the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) mentioned the case of Captain Allison which was raised on the Adjournment the other day by his hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew). I am grateful to him for giving me this opportunity of inflicting my peroration on the House, which it might otherwise have been spared.
I will not recapitulate the earlier arguments. Briefly, Captain Allison's claim rested on two arguments—first, that he had been misled as to his rate of pay on taking a commission in the Royal Army Educational Corps, and, secondly, that as a result of the misinformation which had been given him he had suffered financial hardship and damnification.
As I said the other night, we do not consider that Captain Allison has succeeded in proving that he was misled, but for our part we do not exclude the possibility that that was so; it is quite possible that he was misled. We have not been able to obtain confirmation, but we are prepared to accept that it might have happened. What we are not prepared to accept is that as a result of the wrong information that was given him by the board in the first place he suffered financial hardship.
On the last occasion I gave details of Captain Allison's income in civil life and compared them with the pay he was drawing on entering the Royal Army Educational Corps. He threw up an income of £730 a year supplemented by certain casual profits earned in his spare time. Here, I would point out that Captain Allison declined to provide a certified statement from the Inland Revenue of his income. We asked him for this because it would have helped us, possibly, to help him. He sacrificed his civil job in favour of what was certainly more leisured employment in the Royal Army Educational Corps at a better income, amounting to £930 a year, to which everyone has agreed he was entitled.
The reason his claim has been rejected by the Army was that it is an established principle—a principle which runs under successive Governments and applies to all Government Departments—that the doctrine of public faith cannot be invoked unless material loss can be shown to have been sustained in consequence of the mistake. In our view, that has not so far been established in the case of Captain Allison. The case is still open in so far as he has appealed against the decision of the Army Council to Her Majesty the Queen and the commands of Her Majesty have not yet been received. I would add that it is expected that a final decision will be reached within the next couple of weeks.
Mention has been made of delay in reaching a decision. I would repeat that the reason is that each time Captain Allison has appealed against the decision we have given his appeal very careful and very sympathetic consideration; in fact, we have gone out of our way to find means of helping him.
The hon. Member also made reference to Regular other ranks who were commissioned during the war and remained in the Army, technically on short service commissions, after the war. Where their extended service is long enough for them to receive retired pay and terminal gratuities they are included in the special classes to which reference is made in Appendix 5 to the Service Pay and Allowances White Paper. There, it will be seen that
Consideration is being given to the terms applicable to various special classes including Chaplains and officers commissioned from the ranks on special terms, and also to the rates of certain other forms of non-effective benefits.
Those are special classes which include, as it says, chaplains, Maltese officers, the Women's Royal Army Corps, Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps, and extended service officers.
The question of these benefits is at present, as the hon. Member suggested, under discussion with the other Service Departments, but it is possible for me to say that those people will, as soon as the discussions are completed, receive improvements to those benefits broadly corresponding to those received by Regular officers under the new scheme.
The hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) referred to National Service grants. I cannot make any announcement of any prospect for the time being of an increase although, like all similar benefits, they are kept constantly under review. I would point out that these benefits go up to £3, that they are in addition to pay and are granted mostly in respect of young men who would not normally be earning very high wages in any case, and that in cases of hardship there is nothing to prevent the parents or relatives concerned from drawing National Assistance should that be necessary.

Mr. Wigg: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not persist in that argument. It seems a very bad thing, indeed—and I

say this in a very kindly way—for the Government, when the debates on the Army Estimates are drawing to an end and we have been trying to build up Regular recruiting, to say to the parents of National Service men, "If we are not generous to you, go to the National Assistance Board." There is real feeling against that approach, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will withdraw what he has said.

Mr. Maclean: I am not inviting the relatives of National Service men to do it. I am simply drawing attention to the fact that in cases of hardship National Assistance is there for the purpose.

Mr. Wigg: One knows that it is there, and the necessity is unfortunate, but as the argument is that although the £3 was adequate when it was introduced the value of money has gone down since, the case for increased grant is substantial, and is not met by saying, "If we are not giving enough from Army funds, get it from the National Assistance Board."

Mr. Maclean: That is not what I was saying, but that in cases where other circumstances conspired to cause hardship, Public Assistance was there.
That there does not seem to be any greater necessity for National Service grants is shown by the fact that of late there has been a considerable falling-off in the number of applications for them. That is why we have been able to reduce the Estimate this year. Had there been a larger demand one would have expected the number of applications to go up. As I told the House only the other day, we do everything we can to draw the attention of soldiers, their parents and next-of-kin to the existence of National Service grants.
We realise that it is very often hard for a wage earner to be taken from his family and put on a reduced wage even at an early stage of his life. We realise that there are cases of hardship. We think that these National Service grants go a long way towards meeting that need, but, as I have said, we keep all these questions under constant review. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we have only limited funds at our disposal and that we are under constant pressure from the House and from all quarters to reduce our estimates year by year—which we have succeeded in doing.

Mr. Wigg: If the country takes young men for its own purposes away from their parents it is not good enough to argue that the country cannot afford to pay more. The country has got to afford it. Among the first claims on the country's purse, when the country calls up these young conscripts, is its best assurance to look after their parents. I should have thought there was an overwhelming case for the hon. Gentleman's giving the assurance that he will consider the substantial arguments put forward by my hon. Friend, and that he will consider again whether the £3, if it was good enough when first introduced, remains good enough in present conditions.
The hon. Gentleman's argument that the claims have gone down is a two-edged one. If the number of applications has gone down, that is all the more reason for being generous for those who yet apply.

Mr. Maclean: As I have said, we are watching the matter closely, and if we feel that it is needed, we shall certainly look into it.

Question put and agreed to.

Sixth Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Ede: In the debate on the Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," I brought up the matter of the rates of pay and allowances for the various ranks in the Territorial Army. Owing to help I received from my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and some very concise and practical information given to me by certain young officers in the Territorial Army, I was able to draw attention to some astounding anomalies, by which a sergeant in a Territorial camp actually gets more in cash for going to camp than the captain, and warrant officers Class I, who are people who are deserving of the highest emoluments the Army can pay to anybody, are very considerably better off even than officers higher up. While I do not dissent from the view that their qualities ought to be recognised, I am afraid that that difference is not quite in accordance with the tradition in the officers' mess.
I had a very pleasant conversation with the hon. Gentleman afterwards, and I sent him two letters on which my statements were based. I am quite certain he will agree with me that the figures given in them cannot be challenged. Since then I have received other correspondence from other Territorial Army officers drawing my attention to the same kind of anomaly. I have also received ample confirmation of the statement I made that most of these young officers, even up to the rank of captain, are people engaged in not very lucrative employments, and that as a rule they give up part of their annual holidays to go to the camps. They have to give up a good many week-ends also to qualify to be regarded as efficient officers, and to get to know their men, which is an essential part of an officer's duty.
I do not know whether the Under-Secretary of State for War can tell me how far this matter has received attention and whether steps will be taken to remove these anomalies. I speak as an old volunteer. I actually volunteered in the nineteenth century and therefore the hon. Gentleman may think me somewhat out of date in these matters. I can assure him, however, that this subject is exciting very lively interest in Territorial officers' messes. I hope that he will say something which will indicate that the subject is regarded as deserving earnest and active attention.

Mr. Maclean: I can say straight away that nobody is more anxious to see officers and, indeed, all ranks in both the active and the reserve Army properly paid than are the Government. In that respect, the interesting speech of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in the debate on the Army Estimates and the arguments which he has now put forward once more, and about which he has written to me, are viewed by us with the greatest sympathy.
The right hon. Gentleman is shocked to find that senior N.C.Os. and warrant officers in some cases receive more than do junior officers. The right hon. Gentleman, with his very distinguished career as a warrant officer Class I, should realise that that is almost the ultimate height to which anybody can rise in the British Army, short of being a field marshal. No rank has more power and authority, but it is something which comes


to a man at the end of his career. The same applies to some extent to a sergeant. That is why warrant officers and sergeants are older men and men with bigger family responsibilities and why it is true that they are paid more than young, junior officers, even captains, who have not advanced so far and have not the same responsibilities either in their work or in family matters. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War announced in presenting the Army Estimates, the pay of officers in the Territorial Army has been increased.

Mr. Wigg: There is a great deal in what the hon. Gentleman has just said. The position of warrant officer Class I requires very special treatment. Compared with a newly-joined second lieutenant there is no doubt who is the more important person and who should receive the higher pay. But my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has touched upon a very important point, because it is not a question of a comparison between the newly-joined second lieutenant and a warrant officer Class I. The White Paper on Army pay alters the differentials quite substantially. One finds now that not only does the second lieutenant get less pay than the warrant officer Class I, but in certain circumstances he gets less pay than a private soldier.
The seven-star private, serving on a long engagement, gets 3s. 6d. a week more than a second lieutenant. That principle may have been pushed a little far, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) had that in mind in a previous debate. Now that the Government have accepted the principle of differentials, it does not mean that the policy introduced by the White Paper in taking differentials as far as this is not in need of constant review.
My right hon. Friend has rendered a great service in drawing attention to the dissatisfaction which this policy has already aroused in the Territorial Army, even without the White Paper. I was glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman, therefore, because it is a promising sign that the statement of my right hon. Friend will help him in his negotiations with his arch enemy—the Treasury. I hope, therefore, that for the sake of the

Territorial Army the hon. Gentleman will be wholly successful.

Question put and agreed to.

Seventh to Twenty-third Resolutions agreed to.

Twenty-fourth Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

It being half-past Nine o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply), to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Resolution under consideration.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put Forthwith, with respect to the remaining Resolution reported from the Committee of Supply but not yet agreed to by the House, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in that Resolution:—

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Twenty-fifth Resolution, put and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith, with respect to each Resolution come to by the Committee of Supply and not yet agreed to by the House, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in that Resolution:—

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY [1st March]

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1956–57

VOTE A.—NUMBER OF LAND FORCES

That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 485,000, all ranks, be maintained safety of the United Kingdom and the of the possessions of Her Majesty's during the year ending on the 31st March, 1957.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY [5th March]

AIR ESTIMATES, 1956–57

VOTE A.—NUMBER FOR AIR FORCE SERVICE

That a number of officers, airmen and airwomen, not exceeding 257,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY [8th March]

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1956–57

VOTE A.—NUMBERS

That 128,000 Officers, Seamen and Boys and Royal Marines, who are borne on the books of Her Majesty's Ships and at the Royal Marine establishments, and members of the Women's Royal Naval Service and Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service, be employed for the Sea Service, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY [22nd February]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLE MENTARY ESTIMATE, 1955–56.

Orders of the Day — CLASS IV

VOTE 1. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,698,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Education, and of the various establishments connected therewith, including sundry grants in aid, a subscription to an international organisation, grants in connection with physical training and recreation, and grants to approved associations for youth welfare.

VOTE 14. PUBLIC EDUCATION, SCOTLAND

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £523,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for public education in Scotland, including grants in aid and other payments into the Education (Scotland) Fund; for grants in aid and expenses in connection with

the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh; for the education of Poles; and for other educational services.

Resolutions agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS [15th March]

Resolutions reported,
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ended on the 31st March, 1955, the sum of £20 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st March, 1956, the sum of £64,333,558 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st March, 1957, the sum of £1,764,835,100 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolutions agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by The Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. H. Brooke.

CONSOLIDATED FUND

Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-five, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-six and one thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 110.]

VALIDATION OF ELECTIONS (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

9.33 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members know all about the need for the Bill. They will recall that my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal informed the House on 8th March of the disqualification of four Members of the Northern Ireland House of Commons, including the Speaker, and of two Northern Ireland Senators. The facts were laid before Parliament in a White Paper, Cmd. 9698, which contains all the relevant information and incorporates the Reports of the four Select Committees of the Northern Ireland Parliament.
By Section 18 (2) of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, the law for the time being relating to disqualification from Membership of this House applies also to Members of both Houses of Stormont. and the Parliament of Northern Ireland has no power to legislate on this subject. Her Majesty's Government have received representations accordingly from the Government of Northern Ireland proposing the passage of the necessary indemnifying and validation legislation at Westminster.
The White Paper shows that for varying periods since 1944 the Members and Senators concerned held offices of profit under the Crown and were therefore incapable of being returned. I would call the attention of the House to the fact that all four of these Select Committees of the Northern Ireland Parliament were satisfied that those disqualified were unaware of or failed to appreciate the legal complexities involved. The Committees also recorded that, with the exception of the small sums received by the late Mr. Henry Fleming, no remuneration or expenses were at any time applied for or received by any of the persons concerned. It is, hon. Members would think, a wholly lamentable matter that these persons should find themselves in this predicament just because they had the patriotism and the self-sacrifice to undertake additional public work without reward.
This Bill does not include any specific provisions to validate the actions of the Speaker, Sir Norman Stronge, and of Sir Wm. McCleery during the time that he held office as a Minister, because the validation of their elections puts that matter right automatically. I would only venture to say that we have had five Bills on this sort of topic in this Session, and I do not doubt that hon. Members are tired of the process and regard the present activities of the Select Committee, to which this House has thought fit to refer the House of Commons Disqualification Bill, as of the utmost importance.

9.36 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I do not know why the learned Solicitor-General should have looked so fiercely at me in the more emphatic parts of his speech, because I am still living in the hope that I have never done anything that will disqualify me, though, as case succeeds case, my hope becomes less and less.
In the first place, I think we ought to express some sympathy with the relatives of the late Senator Henry Fleming, about whom this matter arose at a time when he was so seriously ill, as the medical evidence given in the report indicates, that a long life of service was being terminated in circumstances which, I am quite sure, we must all regret. I think we ought also to express our thanks to the Northern Ireland Parliament and its Committee for the care with which they have gone into these matters.
A fresh point emerges here, which I do not think really arose in any except one of all the cases we have in front of us. Most of these Members, when they had their attention drawn to their position as long as a couple of years ago, immediately took steps to resign from the offices which they had held, and which, as the learned Solicitor-General said, were in every case offices to which a person had every reason to feel some pride in being called, as they indicated that they were persons capable of exercising a judicial temperament, which is a very great testimonial that one can get in any part of Ireland.
I join with hon. and learned Gentlemen in the hope that the Select Committee, on which the House did me the honour to appoint me as one of its members, will be able to find a way in which


perfectly reputable citizens serving the community in a number of ways that are very essential shall not be subjected to the worry and almost the indignity of finding themselves virtually suspended from the service of this House or of either House in Northern Ireland through this kind of inadvertence. I hope that we shall be able to find a way in which it will be possible for a person to know what his position is, and that it will also be possible to take some steps to avoid the repetition of this kind of thing.
Let us take the case of Dr. Nixon. This is a part of the evidence:
Did you then think that your position as a Member of Parliament was regularised?—I did not. I did not think my position was irregular.
I think you misunderstand. After you had signed that letter did you think that as regards being a Member of Parliament you were in a regular position?—That I was in a regular what? Would you repeat the question, because it might be important?
After you had signed the letter and resigned as a factory doctor, in your own mind did you think that you were quite valid and regular in your position as a Member of Parliament?—Because I signed that letter in the Ministry's room here had no effect one way or another on my mind, because prior to signing the letter I had given the position no thought whatever; and having signed it I regarded it as a routine thing that had been done by the Ministry official. I did not approve or disapprove of doing it, and I did not take into my consideration the effect of that letter.
I can only say that he was a very honest witness.
I am not saying this in any way to pillory him, or to say anything about him that could be regarded as offensive. I am sure that that represents the state of mind in which many of our colleagues, whom we hold in the highest respect, have found themselves when confronted with this matter. We have stumbled across an archaism in the law of this country which, in every way, it is desirable we should remove. But let no one think that in so doing we desire to see an increase in the influence of the Crown, as at present represented by the Executive, over Members of the House not in the Government.
The origin of these troubles was in Parliaments that were very different from that which we now have. On the other hand, it is still important that people should realise that the Executive's power to influence private Members of Parliament should be limited to its powers of

argument and not to the granting of favours and offices. That was what gave rise to the legislation which now gives us, in very different circumstances, quite undeserved trouble. My right hon. and hon. Friends hope that the Bill will have the speedy passage which we understand the Government desire it to have. We sincerely hope, although the hope is somewhat faint, that this is the last of the Bills of this nature that we shall have to consider.

9.42 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: I shall detain the House for only one minute in order to underline what the Solicitor-General had to say and to call attention to the fact that none of the ladies and gentlemen whose election we are validating received any money from the offices of profit they are supposed to have held. I want to call the attention of the House to the Reports of the Select Committee on Election one by one:
Your Committee are satisfied that Dr. Hickey acted in all good faith and without any knowledge of the legal complexities involved, and that at no time did she apply for or receive any remuneration or expenses of any kind whatsoever.
We are satisfied that Sir William"—
that is, Sir William MoCleery—
never acted as Assessor and neither claimed nor received either remuneration by way of fees or otherwise, or expenses.
Your Committee are satisfied that Sir Norman Stronge acted in all good faith and without any knowledge of the legal complexities involved, and that at no time did he apply for or receive any remuneration or expenses of any kind whatsoever during the period he was Chairman …
Your Committee are satisfied that Lieut.-Colonel Richardson acted in all good faith and without any knowledge of the legal complexities involved, and that at no time did he apply for or receive any remuneration or expenses of any kind whatsoever during his chairmanship.
Your Committee are also satisfied that while acting as Appointed Factory Doctor Dr. Nixon did not at any time receive any fees or emoluments from the Ministry of Labour and National Insurance.
The fact that these people received no sums of any kind shows how ridiculous it is that in this modern time and age we should have to indemnify them for a crime which they never committed. I hope that the work of the Committee will at some time prevent Parliament from


having to put right the case of men and women who have done no wrong whatever.

9.45 p.m.

Sir David Campbell: I wish to thank my right hon. and learned Friend and the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and the hon. Member for Itchen (Dr. King) who have spoken in support of this Bill. I would emphasise the public service rendered by these six people to the people of Northern Ireland. I cannot do better than read an extract from a letter addressed by Mr. Maginess, who was then Home Secretary, to the Speaker, Sir Norman Stronge:
The Council, consisting of an independent Chairman with equal number of employers' and workers' representatives and a number of persons representing other interests, was set up under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act (Northern Ireland), 1945, and it is, as you know, charged with the duty of advising and assisting my Ministry in matters relating to the employment, undertaking of work on their own account or training of disabled persons generally. The sympathetic working out of these matters will mean a very great deal to disabled persons and especially to disabled ex-Service men and women, and in view of the importance of having the right Chairman it would give me a very great pleasure if you would accept the appointment. I am well aware how busy you are and of the many calls which are made upon your time, but I do not think that the demands of the Council would be onerous, and I am looking forward to receiving a favourable reply.
It may be said that similar remarks would apply equally to all the other persons

involved in this matter. They performed public service to our people in Northern Ireland, and none of them, with the exception of the one Senator who, unfortunately, is no longer with us, received any emoluments of any sort.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

AGRICULTURAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the memorandum of association of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Limited, it is expedient to authorise—
(a) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required for making advances under that Act to the said Corporation for the purpose of increasing its guarantee fund not exceeding in the aggregate, with the advances made to it under the Agricultural Credits Act, 1928, and the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1944, three million two hundred and fifty thousand pounds;
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums paid by the said Corporation by way of repayment of, or interest on, advances made to it under the said Act of the present Session.

Resolution agreed to.

DOCTORS, FLINTSHIRE (TRAVELLING EXPENSES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

9.50 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: I wish to raise a subject which I touched upon on 20th February in a Parliamentary Question addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, concerning the position of doctors who are reported to the Medical Service Committee and are subjected to censure by their executive committee for some action which is not, I would emphasise, a matter of their work as medical persons and which does not involve the doctor-patient relationship.
I asked the Question because the matter had been brought to my notice through a report in the public Press that two doctors in Flintshire had been censured by the Flintshire Executive Council for carelessness. I do not think there was any question of actual dishonesty, to judge by the report, but only of negligence in making their claims for payment under the mileage scheme. The sums involved amounted between them to more than £7,000. The doctors were partners. In one case the sum involved was £3,831 and in the second case £3,667. There was a third partner who had overclaimed only 1s. 5d., but in the other cases considerable sums were involved.
There were three cases or even more. I was acquainted with the details of at least one other case in similar circumstances in which a claim had been made for mileage payments in excess of what was considered proper. In that case it was nearly £3,000, as far as I could make out. So there have been at least three cases and possibly more.
The reason I am raising this matter is not to go into the details of these cases. I understand that the ones mentioned to the public in December are subject to appeal, so I would wish not to go into detail upon them. The point is that when this report was issued to the public, following the meeting of the Executive Council, the names of the three doctors were withheld, although the other details

were given to the Press. On inquiry, I found that this practice was fully in accordance with recommendations made in a circular ETL.248, dated 19th December, 1949, concerning the proper procedure for publicity. It was addressed to the clerks of the executive councils.
This is a most peculiar circular, and in these disciplinary matters it makes no distinction between different types of offence. I should wish to make a clear distinction between offences which concerned the treatment by doctors of patients and offences which concerned doctors in relation to such things as public funds, whether from the Treasury or whether from a pool affecting payment made to other doctors in the area. No such distinction is made in the circular, which simply says that when the report of the Service Committee to the Executive Council has been accepted and a decision has been reached
the Press should normally be admitted and told of the decision.
It goes on:
The Minister suggests that it might be convenient if the Council were to publish a summary of the case as presented by the Service Committee, and of their findings.
Here is the summary of the case given to the Press in Flintshire. It consists of four pages and goes into considerable detail. I have it by the courtesy of the Chairman of the Executive Committee. I am a little surprised that it is sent to me marked "Confidential," as I am informed in a letter from the clerk that it was in fact handed to the Press. In the succeeding paragraph of this circular, it
goes on to say:
In due course the Council is notified of the decision. In the Minister's view it is open to the Council at that stage—and in serious cases it would be desirable—to give further publicity. This might be done by way of publishing a summary of the case (if a summary had previously been published a shorter summary should suffice) together with a report of the Minister's decision.
Therefore, publicity is positively encouraged. But then in the final paragraph of the circular it is said:
At no stage should mention be made of the names of the parties to the proceedings or of other particulars which might lead to their identification.
Accordingly, in the report which I have and which is the one which was given to the Press, the doctors concerned are called


Dr. A. and Dr. B and their places of residence are concealed as X, Y, Z and I think there was a W as well.
The public is given information not merely as to the formal findings, but if a newspaper editor thinks it is of sufficient interest to the public, very full particulars indeed are given of the charges brought against the doctors concerned and their defence. The result of this procedure, it seems to me, is that the public is in a position in which the greatest possible suspicion and conjecture are bound to be aroused. I appeal to the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary. If she were a member of the public in Flintshire and saw a report in the newspaper that very considerable sums had been involved, she would naturally wonder which doctors could have been so careless as to be in this position.
I know from the experience that I have had in my constituency in these last few months that there has been considerable public feeling in this matter. It has resulted in the public having the general feeling that the medical profession as a whole has been brought into disrepute, and it seems to me to be grossly unfair to the other medical practitioners in the area that they may be subject to some completely unfounded suspicion on the part of the public and yet not be in a position in which they can clear themselves. I might even say that there is a certain Member of this House who has a relative in the medical profession in my constituency and he came to me and said, "I suppose it was not by any chance my cousin?" I had to say that as far as I was aware, there was no suspicion whatsoever attaching to his relative.
I would most strongly urge the Minister to reconsider this circular. It might even be said that it should be reconsidered to the effect that publicity should be discouraged rather than encouraged. I find it very difficult to see what good purpose is served by publicising details of the case without identifying the parties. I can think of no other instance in which this is done. It seems to be peculiar to the medical profession. As I say, it arouses the maximum public suspicion and gossip. It obviously has little effect on the doctor concerned, because the mere publication of the details without identifying the doctor means that it is

neither here nor there. The doctor is reprimanded by the Service Committee or by the Council, but the fact that the details of the case are given in the newspapers does not make any difference to the doctor if his name is not included. It therefore has no deterrent effect upon the doctor and serves no useful purpose in that sense.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

Mrs. White: The Minister should look at the circular again.

Mr. Robert Crouch: Would I be wrong in assuming that at the time the circular was issued the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) was the responsible Minister?

Mrs. White: I believe that is so, but I am complaining about the circular and I do not care who was the Minister concerned. I am saying that it seems to me to be an ill-conceived circular. There may have been reasons of which I am not aware which led the Minister at that time to send out the circular. He may have hoped later to come to some agreement with the B.M.A. that names could be published in certain cases, but the circular as it stands is all we can discuss and it makes it clear that names should not be published in any circumstances.
The Minister should discuss the matter again with the B.M.A. and should recognise that the present situation is thoroughly unsatisfactory. My own view is that the different types of misdeameanour should be distinguished. It might be much better if the names of the doctors were not published in purely medical cases. I recognise that there is a strong argument here and that in exercising his medical judgment a doctor may be peculiarly vulnerable; for the public may be extremely ill-informed and unreasonable and not in a position to make a sound judgment.
In those cases, therefore, there is much to be said for not giving publicity to the cases at all. It would be better to keep it in the family, so to speak, and for the doctor to be judged by his peers and


by the public members of the Council, unless the case involves his removal from the National Health Service register, when the name has to be published for obvious practical reasons, or unless some criminal charge arises, in which case, again, the circular does not apply. In all other purely medical cases where the treatment of patients is concerned it is far better to give no particulars.
The position is different when we consider cases in which doctors are acting as public servants, much in the sense of other public servants and officers of local authorities or of public boards—such as, for example, in making out claims for travelling expenses or mileage expenses. There is some distinction between the two, but the principle is similar in that it is obtaining money for distances said to have been travelled. In cases of that nature I do not see that the doctor should be regarded as sacrosanct.
I have consulted a number of medical colleagues in the House as well as friends outside and one or two of them, although very much in the minority, have said that a doctor's name should not be given to the public for any kind of misdemeanour whatever, because it is essential that the public should have complete, utter and unimpaired confidence in a medical man. I feel that we cannot accept that. If a man is a good doctor, then I am sure that we should be able to give the facts to the public, which has reasonable standards of judgment in these matters, and lei, the public draw any conclusions that it thinks fit. If the man is a good doctor I do not believe he would lose his patients.
I do not see that doctors are in a special position which requires that they should have this anonymity which, as far as I know, is extended to no other body of persons. It may be said that at times doctors are under conditions of great strain and overwork. We agree and have great sympathy with general practitioners who have periods of very heavy work and strain. But so, after all, do others in public life. It may be said that they might lose quite disproportionately in their professional life because of a relatively minor offence.
I repeat that I do not think that on matters of this kind the public is as unreasonable as certain members of the medical profession seem to think. After

all, other people in public life have suffered considerably from what might seem a minor offence where sums of very much less than £3,000 or £4,000 have been concerned. We all know of instances in public life in which persons have travelled on the railway with a ticket which was not in order and have been completely ruined as a result. I cannot see that doctors should regard themselves as peculiarly sacrosanct and entitled to special treatment in their non-medical activities which does not extend to other persons.
For these reasons I earnestly suggest that this circular should be re-considered. I think there is much to be said for discontinuing publicity in certain cases, but not in other cases. There, I think, the public is fully entitled to information and the full information could be given with the names of those concerned. If they then proved that they had not been in fact at fault, or if on going to appeal it was decided that their interpretation of the regulations, for example, was correct, well and good. That, of course, should be given equivalent publicity. It is just the same as if a person is charged in any other way—a member of a local authority who may be surcharged—and may on appeal show that he was not in fact at fault to the extent of the claim and so on. In those cases he gets very full publicity, as my right hon. Friend for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) pointed out when I asked a Parliamentary Question.
If it is shown that the person was justified in making the claims which are given publicity and his name can be properly cleared, in the same way when a charge against the doctor is not substantial he should be allowed an opportunity of clearing his name. I think the circular makes the worst of all possible worlds as it gives some information, but not all the information, and is very unfair to other doctors in the neighbourhood. It arouses very unfortunate gossip, conjecture and suspicion, which can only be to the detriment of the reputation of the medical profession as a whole.

10.7 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I am grateful to the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) for the manner in which she has raised what is not an easy problem and


upon which varied opinions are held. I am glad of the opportunity of explaining in some detail the reasons which lie behind the practise that the names of doctors should not be disclosed when they have been a party to an investigation of a possible breach of contract by an executive council.
I agree with the hon. Lady that the point which should be kept in the forefront is that it is vital that nothing should be done to interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, which it is important to maintain if the doctor is to be able to give his best service to the patient. That cuts both ways. If publicity is to be given to the doctor, we might argue that it must equally be given to the patient against whom a doctor might well wish to complain.
Many people are reticent about personal ills and would think twice about lodging a complaint, which might prove perfectly legitimate, if all the details of those personal ailments were to appear in the local newspaper. We might not get the very frank complaints, not always upheld or justified—but in some cases certainly so—if the whole gamut of the executive council work was to be open to the full blaze of publicity.
The hon. Lady made the point that it was generally desirable in the public interest that the doctor-patient relationship should be maintained. She seeks to isolate and to deal differently with those cases brought before the service committees of executive councils which do not directly arise on a complaint made by patients in relation to treatment and care but are concerned more with the contract between the professional men and the executive council in respect of remuneration, travelling allowances, mileage or something of that nature.
The first difficulty is to separate and isolate that type of case. I can think, for example, of a claim investigated by the executive council on the question of over-prescribing. It affects the monetary position but cannot be dealt with without bringing in the patient. There are many other similar cases, whether it be charging for spectacles or whether it be charging for dental treatment, where it is practically impossible, whilst it affects the monetary payment to the professional man, to isolate the case from the patient. It is true

that the great majority of cases which are considered by the executive councils arise from complaints made from patients against doctors in relation to treatment and care. A considerably smaller number of cases arise from circumstances—such as those of the Flintshire case—which are quite divorced from a particular patient's case.
First may I outline the procedure, which is the same for all four professions concerned, whether medical, dental, pharmaceutical, or ophthalmic—and one must remember that these are professional men, under contract with the executive councils, but not in the same position as employees under direction. For the purpose of this debate I shall deal with it as if it concerned the Medical Service Committee only, although exactly the same procedure applies to the others.
The case is first considered by the Medical Service Committee, which may or may not find that the doctor has been in breach of his terms of service. The executive Council to which the report is made must accept as conclusive any findings of fact contained in the report, but may make to the Minister any recommendations as to the action to be taken upon it. A right of appeal lies to the Minister who may, of course, on appeal, reverse the original decision. The doctor found in breach of his terms of service by the Medical Service Committee might, therefore, succeed on appeal in having the decision completely reversed and—if one might so describe it—of having any stain on his reputation wiped away.
The first difficulty in adopting the hon. Lady's suggestion arises from the fact that in practice it is often extremely difficult to distinguish in advance the case which is to be wholly concerned, for example, with the technicalities of remuneration—divorced from any patient responsibility—and the case which may subsequently bring in individual doctor-patient relationships and will almost certainly, in the broader sense, involve the relation of patients generally with the doctor in the course of his duties.
The rule about publishing names, therefore, applies virtually to almost every case. A summary of the case without the names is in the normal course given publicity by the executive council as outlined in the circular which the hon. Lady read.


That is done so that the public may be aware that failure to conform with the standards expected by a doctor under the National Health Service does not go unnoticed or undealt with.
The profession has always considered that it would be grossly damaging to the doctor's professional reputation and to his potential ability to help his patients for his name to be revealed in connection with the investigation of a complaint against him, even if the alleged breach was connected with an administrative matter such as, for example, record keeping, or even if no breach was subsequently found.
The rationale of this attitude towards publication is perhaps reinforced by the fact that where a doctor has been brought before the National Health Service Tribunal—where the case goes if it is referred, on the suggestion that his name should be struck off—and it has been found that his name should be removed from the executive council list, his name is then published. In other words, when a doctor's conduct has been such that it is considered unsuitable that he should treat any National Health Service patients, full publicity is given to the fact in the last extreme, and if he is considered to have transgressed to an extent where he is not any longer regarded as reliable to treat National Health Service patients.

Mrs. White: That is rather beside the point. One can hardly help publishing the fact that the doctor is not available to take National Health Service patients.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: When it suddenly appears in the newspaper it has certainly a salutary effect.
Where the misdoing is limited in the sense that it does not affect all the patients, or any of them in a medical sense, or where the failure is in one instance to treat satisfactorily, or to comply with some administrative arrangement, the name is not published in view of the possible unjustified disquiet of his patients generally. This line on publication has not become established only since the inception of the National Health Service. It has long been established and dates back to the time before the National Health Service. It was in operation under the National Health Insurance scheme, when panel doctors

were treated in the same way. The procedure now laid down under the National Health Service was set out in the circular which the hon. Lady quoted and which was sent out in 1949, and it is based on the view of the professions concerned, but not wholly on their desires and views, but also on the very real legal difficulties about publication of names.
If we can set the doctor aside for a moment, I should like to deal with the legal difficulties to which this gives rise. The procedure has not only the support of the professions, although it was at the direct request of the B.M.A. that the practice was extended to cover the names of respondents before the National Health Service tribunal where names had not to be removed from the list, but is adopted because legal difficulties are involved. We have to remember that the executive councils are not in the same position of being protected from actions for libel as are courts of law. I cannot deal with the case which the hon. Lady has particularly raised because, as she knows, it has gone to appeal, and is to be heard on 6th April. I hope she will forgive me if I confine myself to explaining the general difficulties of this procedure for administrative tribunals and inquiries.
As we understand it, the legal position is that it does not appear that an executive council's proceedings or newspaper reports of its decisions would be protected against a libel action by the privilege which applies at the present time to courts of law and to reports on their decisions. Unless, therefore, the whole proceedings in any case before an executive council were published, it would require the most extreme care, and virtually legal training, to be assured that the summary which was given, including the publication of the names, would be sufficient to protect either the newspaper or the executive council from subsequent action for libel.

Mrs. White: I can perfectly appreciate that, if the summary of the kind I have here were published, that difficulty would arise, but I fail to see that it would arise in the same form if only the findings of the council were published, without the summary of the proceedings. It is far more important for the public to know the conclusions than to read the details of the proceedings.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: If the proceedings in toto were published there would be less likelihood of libel than in a summary which might unwittingly give a different interpretation of the case. It is the summary, and probably the initial findings, which may on appeal subsequently be reversed, which might give rise to a case of libel. I do not pretend to be a lawyer, but that is the advice I have from legal experts.
The executive councils know of some cases which have come before them, although the actual hearings were private, where the details have been published. That has been because the newspapers have been able to deduce from other sources the names in some cases, or the complainant has disclosed the names to the Press, which, upon their own responsibility, have made use of the information. There has been a case where a doctor has been a witness in the prosecution of a patient, and one where he has himself given the name to the Press.
Where circumstances suggest a breach of the law, the position is entirely different. The matter is then prosecuted by the police or by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and in that case it is fully covered and reported in the usual way. A comparison was drawn between procedure in this matter and publicity given to payments to members of local authorities for expenses incurred or earnings lost in attendance on their civic duties. I believe that a case on that very issue was recently given considerable publicity in South Wales.
These allowances are in a different position from payments towards expenses incurred or earnings lost through what is in principle unpaid voluntary work. The payments which the hon. Lady has in mind are out of the mileage fund which is part of the remuneration of doctors. I should like to make a point regarding the hon. Lady's desire to see certain cases published which do not affect the doctor-patient relationship. Her argument could cut both ways and defeat the object which she has in mind.
If we are not going to publish cases where there has been medical negligence which might have resulted in a reprimand or a fine but we are going to publish a doctor's name in a case of some technical negligence such as failure to fill a form correctly, we are going to undermine

public confidence in a doctor whose medical practice is perhaps beyond reproach whilst accepting the need for secrecy in a case where a doctor may have been reprimanded on some medical service. We may well safeguard a doctor in a matter of medical negligence and give publicity and perhaps undermine public confidence in a doctor in a matter of pure technical negligence.
I should like to say a few words on the facts of the present case without expressing any opinion, as it has gone to appeal. There has been a certain amount of misconception and perhaps I might say something to clear up the basis of the case. It should be made clear in the first place that the difficulties have arisen with regard to the claims of certain doctors on the mileage fund for the area of the Denbighshire and Flintshire Executive Council. They do not relate to "travelling expenses" in the ordinary sense of repayment of the expense of journeys by car, bus or train.
The purpose of mileage payments is to recompense rural practitioners on a basis which will take reasonable account of both time and money incurred in travelling to their patients over and above that incurred by urban practitioners for the same number of patients. A sum of £2 million annually is made available for these payments for the whole of Great Britain and this is part of the total sum voted annually by Parliament to provide remuneration for general practitioners in the National Health Service. Under the arrangements made for the distribution of this sum, any excess payments affect the proportions available to doctors in all rural areas. They do not constitute a loss to the Exchequer. Therefore, whatever claims may or may not have been made or may or may not be substantiated on appeal, it is not a case of drawing money from the Exchequer or of putting in additional expense claims.
The hon. Lady quoted the sum of money involved generally in this case. I do not wish to go into the details because the matter has gone to appeal. To deal with the principle, I can say that mileage units are based as a general rule on the distance from the residence of the doctor to the patient's home. In this area, as an additional local rule where a partnership is concerned, the calculation is from


the residence of the nearest partner. The point at issue is the definition and selection of residence. On that issue I can make no comment, but it is fair to point out that it is not a case of an inflated expense allowance but a question of definition which has gone to appeal.

Mrs. White: The hon. Lady will agree that, although this is not making additional claims on the Treasury, it means that other doctors obtain less if certain doctors obtain more?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Yes, that is true.

Mr. G. B. H. Currie: Would my hon. Friend agree that doctors find it confusing if, when a new partner is introduced into a partnership, all the calculations of the mileage allowance must be made again, because mileage is calculated from the residence—in other words, from the bed instead of from the surgery? The result is that if a new partner is introduced into an existing partnership of two or three doctors all the mileage allowances may be changed without the doctors appreciating that fact.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The instructions are issued by the local executive council and there is a certain elasticity in relation to local rules. In the case the hon. Lady has in mind, the calculation is based on the residence of the nearest doctor. I appreciate that difficulty may arise if a new partner becomes the nearest doctor and is perhaps miles nearer than the one whose residence was previously used as a basis of computation.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: It has been useful to have this short debate, because it has reminded many of us of some of the problems involved in this difficult matter, and it is just as well that we are reminded of the position of the patient as well as of the doctor. As there is undoubtedly some anxiety that there should be the maximum amount of publicity that is fair for the sake of other doctors, then we ought to consider with the British Medical Association whether it is satisfied that the interests of the other members of the medical profession are fully covered by the present position.
My hon. Friend has raised the fair point that a good deal of suspicion may attach unfairly to a number of practitioners. The answer is for them to take action with the British Medical Council to ensure within their profession that any breaches of medical conduct, or of the contracts with the Ministry, do not occur. This rests largely on the profession, so it might be of value if it was brought home to the British Medical Association.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Perhaps I may add that this procedure will come under consideration by the Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Inquiries. We shall, of course, consider this set of administrative committees in the light of what may emerge from the report of that Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.